| |||||||||||||
Linux-2.6.33-libre releasedLinux-2.6.33-libre releasedPosted Mar 2, 2010 10:09 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335)In reply to: Linux-2.6.33-libre released by Janne Parent article: Linux-2.6.33-libre released
>Linux kernel is free software. It's distributed under the GPL and the source is readily available. It contains few blobs of firmware that are not free, however.
>Now, keeping the above fact in mind, what should one do if he wants to run only free software?
That would solve the problem for that end-user. But there are distributors that try to make a good faith effort to not ship non-free software. With the increasing amount of binary blobs in the kernel this is getting more difficult.
>Instead of wasting your time on this, how about actually making free software better?
Popularity isn't the primary goal; making sure a piece of software is in line with the four software freedoms is the goal. From that angle it's very hard to see how they are "wasting their time", since they are doing work that results directly in what they set out to do; making sure distributors (and some end-users) have access to a kernel for their OS that complies with the four software freedoms. A goal not very surprising or out of order for a branch of the FSF.
(Log in to post comments)
Linux-2.6.33-libre released Posted Mar 2, 2010 11:47 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
"Popularity isn't the primary goal; making sure a piece of software is in
line with the four software freedoms is the goal."
If the goal is to liberate users from perils on proprietary software then
Like I said, instead of wasting time in an effort that does't really
"From that angle it's very hard to see how they are "wasting their time",
And you can achieve those four software freedoms by simply using hardware
"A goal not very surprising or out of order for a branch of the FSF."
You could say that again. It's looking more and more that FSF is about
Linux-2.6.33-libre released Posted Mar 2, 2010 15:29 UTC (Tue) by dbruce (subscriber, #57948) [Link]
This (and similar projects like GnuSense or whatever it is precisely called) are useful as benchmarks. They provide something to give to OEMs who want to demonstrate that they really and truly support Free Software, with all the asterisks and gray areas removed.
If a few years from now we reach a point where new hardware routinely works in Linux without proprietary blobs, that would be a very valid thing to celebrate, and folks like these would deserve a lot of credit.
I agree that "Linux-libre" doesn't make a lot of sense for ordinary users. As another poster pointed out, it will only run on compliant hardware, in which case the proprietary blobs in the standard kernel would never have been loaded anyway.
Linux-2.6.33-libre released Posted Mar 2, 2010 22:52 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
If it became an issue that affected profits all the manufacturers would do is put the binary blob in some flash (and use proprietary updates that will probably require windows) or ROM on the hardware itself, lock it up so it can't be changed or updated and the live with any bugs that result. That USED to be the way things were, these hardware blobs were in a bit of rom on the hardware and weren't upgradeable. If you ran into a bug you had to buy new hardware.
These binary blobs are a good step in the evolution of hardware because they allow hardware patching for bugs discovered after release. Most of these binary blobs aren't for hardware like winmodems where the stuff is being run in the CPU, it's truly specific to the hardware and an attempt to make the hardware better by making it possible to fix firmware bugs.
The only possible thing this could ever change is to reverse this trend (towards firmware that's fixable after manufacture) and lock everything up back in ROM's on the hardware. Personally I think this is a terrible idea that's a waste of time at best and a disastrous degrading of capability at the worst. These firmware blobs aren't software, as others have noted a significant number of them aren't even code!
I have to wonder where people get these ideas, although hardware blobs like winmodems where code is being executed by the CPU should be replaced where possible, most of these hardware blobs are insignificant and unimportant in the sense of freedom of code and simply aren't a big deal.
Linux-2.6.33-libre released Posted Mar 3, 2010 0:22 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> These firmware blobs aren't software, as others have noted a significant number of them aren't
> even code!
They *are* software, and not having the source *is* a problem. Take 802.11 adapters, for
Obviously, being able to modify the code to add that feature is of great value.
But I agree with the rest of what you say: the way to get there *certainly* isn't to prefer hardware
Again, if someone makes a linux distribution that only works on hardware not containing
Linux-2.6.33-libre released Posted Mar 3, 2010 10:53 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] are less functional than the hardware allows.Never mind that - those blobs are often quite substantial bits of software running on quite capable hardware (particularly these days). Often these blobs have access to a DMA capable bus and hence have complete, unfettered access over your computer, while also interacting with remote entities, e.g. over a network.
False dilemma? Posted Mar 4, 2010 3:26 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
It's hard to tell whether you're trying to portray a false dilemma or you honestly don't see that there are more than two possibilities involved, namely:
- build the firmware into permanent memory and keep it a secret
- build the firmware into permanent memory and set it Free so that users can contribute to it and find great new uses for the device so that it gets more popular (dlink anyone?)
- have the secret firmware uploaded to the device as needed
- set the firmware Free so that users can upload the original or modified versions thereof to the device as needed
Why do you jump from the conclusion that, by refusing to help hardware vendors impose their choices upon users, and helping users be aware of the problem so they make better purchases next time, vendors would retreat to permanent memory?
There are a number of real-life examples that show the opposite: vendors who, instead of retreating to proprietary territory, pursuing their own interests, embraced and extended freedom, quite often without extinguishing it.
Do you regard hardware manufacturers as particularly dumb people who would prefer to go back to the software dark ages over pursuing their own interests and profiting from the pursuit, or do you perceive any significant change to the hardware manufacturing and selling business in teh last 40 or so years?
You might remember (or have read) that, back then, hardware manufacturers would actually release complete source code to the computers they sold (that were *far* less powerful than today's peripheral computers), and users were glad to contribute to the process of perfecting the system.
It was only when third parties got in and started selling software separately from hardware that proprietary software took over. Why would hardware vendors, that still ship the corresponding software along with the hardware that's their primary business, behave so differently now from the way they did back then, given that there aren't third parties involved?
This is getting long already, but I'd like to also address the point that the ability to patch the firmware so as to fix bugs in it, which hardware vendors evidently perceive as an advantage, may actually turn out to be harmful to users in the long run.
The reason is that, when it's very hard to fix a problem, you'll work very hard to avoid the problem in the first place, but when it's easy to fix it, you're often sloppier on testing, because the customers will do the testing for you and help you shake the bugs out.
With the short shelf life of these products, odds are that many customers will end up finding bugs that the vendor will decide not to fix, either becuase it's not cost effective or because they've already moved on to other products. Fixing stuff that was already sold and that won't sell much anyway is of little economic interest to fix, and customers will be stuck with the problems unless they take it back to the shop for a refund, which few will do.
Linux-2.6.33-libre released Posted Mar 2, 2010 15:52 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] Like I said, instead of wasting time in an effort that does't really benefit free software at all, we should be investing those resources in actually making free software better, so more and more people choose free software over proprietary software. When you wrote "we" in the above, I think you actually meant to write "you", unless you're actually involved in this initiative and have taken the bizarre decision to criticise it publicly. In any case, since it doesn't look as if you're giving friendly advice ("handful of extremeists [sic]"), I guess those involved might want to look a bit further for strategy tips. That said, with the more prominent strategic initiatives in the area of making Free Software more popular stuck in the mire of "shiny, shinier, shiniest" while abandoning basic functionality and reliability, they might be looking for some time. Meanwhile, beyond the narrow experience of a bunch of desktop users whose "Nvidia is working fine now", proprietary hardware remains a continuous and real problem.
Linux-2.6.33-libre released Posted Mar 3, 2010 7:11 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
"When you wrote "we" in the above, I think you actually meant to write "you", unless you're
actually involved in this initiative and have taken the bizarre decision to criticise it publicly."
Well, I consider myself to be a part of the community, as are the people behind Linux-libre.
"In any case, since it doesn't look as if you're giving friendly advice ("handful of extremeists
It seems to me that the motivator behind this project is the idea that mere existence of
"That said, with the more prominent strategic initiatives in the area of making Free Software
Those two are not opposites, you can have both. You need both. And the people who make
If we only focused on the latter (functionality and reliability) we would all be running Emacs.
If we want to liberate users, we need to make free software appealing to the masses. If we want
It's quite telling that you consider software that looks good and sexy to be a bad thing. No
"Meanwhile, beyond the narrow experience of a bunch of desktop users whose "Nvidia is working
If they are a problem, then don't use them.
Linux-2.6.33-libre released Posted Mar 3, 2010 17:10 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] It seems to me that the motivator behind this project is the idea that mere existence of proprietary code is bad in on itself, and it needs to be removed. Even if those bits just sat in the HD unused. I, for one, can't see the harm. One motivation for Debian's audit of the binary blobs was that the ownership of such data (and ability to redistribute it) was in question. I don't regard that as a harmless situation. Those two are not opposites, you can have both. You need both. And the people who make software sexy are usually different from the people who work on the plumbing. Haven't you just contradicted yourself? Maybe the people working on this particular plumbing don't feel qualified or well-positioned to make Linux "sexy". "We" can work on both, and that also means that "we" can be "wasting time" doing both. It's quite telling that you consider software that looks good and sexy to be a bad thing. No wonder Linux is stuck at around 1% of the market. No, but it's interesting that you have chosen to misrepresent my position as taking an all-or-nothing choice between "sexy" software and reliable software. When you have people complaining about, for example, the functional state of KDE 4 versus KDE 3 while people bang the drum for "new and exciting" paradigms, desktop effects, and so on, it's clear that someone has to make the case for keeping the fundamental stuff working. And most people just want stuff that just works, "sexy" or not. The notion that a user interface has to have lots of flashing, whizzing stuff before the average person will consider using it is based on a very narrow view, typically focused through the lenses of Mac OS X and Windows Vista/7, and is frequently unsupported by actual user observations. If they are a problem, then don't use them. Fine advice for anyone trying to source components for an open hardware project that doesn't involve just picking up a motherboard and the rest of the off-the-shelf gear from some retail outlet.
|
|||||||||||||