| |||||||||||||
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"Posted Nov 11, 2010 19:24 UTC (Thu) by oak (subscriber, #2786)In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by anselm Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
There's a very good reason to get rid of opaque binary blobs. If some piece of HW can write to any memory location, it having buggy firmware can corrupt internal kernel (or user space) memory silently and you have no way to review these things.
Catching bad memory writes done by HW is really hard (how _you_ would do it?). And if you don't have source, how do you fix the firmware?
Otherwise I have neutral attitude to firmware. Linux is at least on desktop too small to have much effect on manufacturers. On embedded side it may make sense to refuse binary blobs to make sure that there's open firmware... Aat least until manufacturer stops selling the HW at which point refusing the blob probably doesn't anymore act as encouragement for opening.
(Log in to post comments)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 19:51 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
I don't think anyone disagrees that it would be preferable to have the source to all firmware. The disagreement rests upon whether, if we *are* going to have closed firmware, it's better to have it be runtime loadable (in which case it's much easier for us to replace it with open firmware, as happened in the b43 case) or for it to be in ROM (in which case it's impossible to replace and thus will never be open). I don't see how dropping support for runtime loadable firmware helps us encourage open replacements.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 3:04 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
I'd say the disagreement rests upon this straw man.
The issue is not whether users are allowed to use the non-Free firmware. Nobody's trying to stop them.
The issue is whether we, as a community, should encourage that. Whether we, as a community, should help vendors of hardware that requires non-Free Software capture customers. Whether we, as a community, want to encourage users to be happy slaves, keeping them comfortable and ignorant so that they will even invite others into the trap and feed the aggressors, or take a stand against non-Free Software with us.
The question really boils down to whether or not GNU+Linux distros and Linux should induce and help users accept the oppression from non-Free Software suppliers. The alternative is to refrain from aiding users in this regard. Which, again, doesn't mean *preventing* users from doing so: they wouldn't be stopped from obtaining and installing the non-Free Software, from those who *want* to oppress users.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 3:11 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
The problem is that removing loadable firmware support from the kernel does little to reduce the quantity of non-free firmware used in systems. To do that you'd also have to remove the drivers for all the hardware we know to be using non-free firmware. My understanding is that there's currently no completely functional open embedded controller firmware, so shouldn't you remove drivers/acpi/ec.c?
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 5:10 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
I don't know. Please help me understand what you're suggesting. How is it that drivers/acpi/ec.c encourages users to install non-Free Software?
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 13:40 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Because every piece of hardware it manages contains non-free software.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 18:38 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Yeah, but that software is installed by the manufacturer, not by the user, so that doesn't come even close to answering the question.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 21:54 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
How does Linux supporting hardware that can only (at present) function with non-free firmware not encourage the user to purchase that hardware and run non-free firmware? If the kernel didn't do it, they'd be forced to find a free alternative.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 13, 2010 7:37 UTC (Sat) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Aah, thanks, I see what you mean now. I think the forcing part is not a good one, though. Nudging towards Free Software, I think is fine, but forcing is a bit too much unfreedom to me.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 3:49 UTC (Fri) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] Your statements are both nonsensical and insulting. You refer to the user community as "happy slaves". You characterize distros that work to deliver a system that is most likely to work out of the box on the widest variety of machines, and thereby attract new linux users, as "oppressing users" or "feeding the aggressors".At the start of this thread I was under the impression that the FSFLA had a positive, though unrealistic goal. You have now succeeded in convincing me that the FSFLA's goals (or at least your representation of them) are actively harmful to the adoption of linux. Should we as a community help and encourage users to use linux, even when that means accommodating their needs to use propriety hardware and non-free applications? Absolutely we should! Doing so does not "oppress" anyone. Rather it increases their range of options and therefore their freedom of choice. To advocate as you do that we should deliberately hide or avoid mentioning exactly the information that would allow potential users to realize that using linux is indeed an option -- well, that is counter-productive and just a really bad idea. It is especially counter-productive when you manage to insult everyone from developers to packagers to end users at the same time. Please stop it.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 5:17 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
For clarity, the oppressors are those who deny users their freedoms, i.e., the developers and original distributors of the non-Free Software. I wouldn't quite qualify as oppressors those who feed the aggressors, merely aiding them in capturing victims. If it seemed like I did, I apologize for the lack of clarity.
I don't see why the Free Software community should help and encourage users to use a non-Free kernel that induces them to install and use more non-Free Software, whose dependence on non-Free Software is growing faster than its Free core, and whose lead developer is proud of not being a member of the Free Software community, and despiteful to our social and ethical values while at that.
Choosing between non-Free systems is choice, but it's not freedom.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 5:49 UTC (Fri) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] Choosing between non-Free systems is choice, but it's not freedom.Nice aphorism. And now you have specifically relegated linux to that category, and castigated Linus for having the temerity to disagree with you. At the end of the road to ideological purity down which you are headed, there will be no useful systems left that are sufficiently pure to meet your peculiar definition of "free". At that point freedom will be just another word for nothing left to choose*. I hope you are happy when you reach that dead end, but I shall not join you there.
*which is not quite the way Dylan said it, but makes at least as much sense :-)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 6:55 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Whereas at the end of the road which you appear to be defending, there won't even be systems left that meet *your* definition of free any more.
I'd rather use whatever freedom and power of choice I have now to try to avert this course. I wish you would, too.
If we give up our freedom without a fight, we'll end up without it. If we fight for it, there's a chance we retain whatever we still have, and even gain back some of what we've already lost. I'd rather fight and risk failing than give it up and be certain of ending up without it.
|
|||||||||||||