Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 70

Thread: Debian 6.0 Kernel Will Be Free Of Closed Firmware

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    879

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Remco View Post
    Wrong. A bunch of meaningless numbers is not open source. It needs to be unobfuscated. If your argument would hold, then all freeware would be open source. The only thing stopping you from understanding the output of a disassembler is yourself.
    Yes, yes, a subjective opinion is clearly wrong in your false dichotomy. There is nothing in the four freedoms that states code must be human readable.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    Imagine a time 10 years from now when hardware manufacturers have wisened up, and allocate a gigabyte or more of flash memory on their video cards to support larger, more all-inclusive firmware. Imagine that "free software" device drivers like `radeong' would then devolve into an exercise of calling into the firmware for high-level tasks. If Linus' policy on non-free firmware were to remain unchallenged by then, we would find ourselves with a free "glue" driver in the mainline kernel, along with a non-free firmware blob implementing the vast majority of the functionality. Is this what you guys want? Because I guarantee you that hardware manufacturers are going to try this tactic sooner or later, because they know that people by and large accept the fact that firmware is non-free, so they can just stuff all their "IP" in there. And as the "IP"-protected subject matter balloons outward indefinitely, soon you find that practically the entire driver is a "firmware" blob.
    I wouldn't say firmware is generally used as a way to protect IP or that companies are planning to put more stuff in ucode because they see it as a way to sidestep Linux. In fact, I doubt Linux is really that big a factor when they decide to use a micro-controller. Ucode is used because it's a good solution to a problem; it saves money or makes the software team's life easier. Mostly is provides a flexible way to provide an extensible HW API that's easier to program and stays consistent across asics as the underlying hardware changes. It's a lot of work to write a driver, and add several more drivers for the micro-controllers and you got a whole bunch more work to do get the hardware going. Isn't the whole point for users to be able to use their hardware in a reasonable timeframe?

    Let's look at it from a business perspective. It takes a lot of company resources to review and release the code. What's in it for the company? They put the time and money and risk into releasing the ucode source and most likely no one does anything with it, or they end up with some hacked up version that purported to be "faster" or "better" and that ends up causing instability in their product or someone hacks the their ucode and uses it to pirate bluray movies. I'm not saying someone couldn't write a better ucode image, but it's not likely. Has anyone written replacement ucode for any chips where the ucode source has been released? If so has it actually proven to be better than the original ucode? I don't see people lining up to write Linux drivers even when HW specs are available, much less ucode for embedded micro-controllers.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Debian just became the most useless distribution to put on a live cd. They should just remove the wireless drivers from the kernel on their installer / live cd so that they don't give the misconception that they will actually work.

    This decision to remove binary blobs is purely political and there's no technical advantage to removing them.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Yes, yes, a subjective opinion is clearly wrong in your false dichotomy. There is nothing in the four freedoms that states code must be human readable.
    You might want to re-read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by damentz View Post
    Debian just became the most useless distribution to put on a live cd. They should just remove the wireless drivers from the kernel on their installer / live cd so that they don't give the misconception that they will actually work.

    This decision to remove binary blobs is purely political and there's no technical advantage to removing them.
    Well you seem like a pretty useless user if you are using debian for a livecd instead of the billions of other way more suitable distros.

    Debian has never been targeted for n00bs and people who want a "friendly" distro.

    Considering most use it as a server or a distrobase, the effects are pretty minimal.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Graphics drivers whatever, console and VESA works with everything nowdays. Let me rehash the major reason why this is a bad idea in terms you can all understand:

    If your only access to the Internet is via a non-free firmware requiring wireless card, you need to download the non-free firmware using the internet connection you can't use because you don't have the non-free firmware, and you're screwed.

    It's not that there's no way around this, it's that it massively complicates the life of persons installing the distribution.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monraaf View Post
    No to non-free firmware, no to non-free Firefox artwork. But yes to non-free Mono disease. Debian is like a vegetarian wearing a fur coat. I cannot take this distro seriously.
    Mono is not a part of Debian default installation.

    Quote Originally Posted by yoshi314 View Post
    debian is on a fast track to becoming most useless distro ever with that kind of attitude.
    Debian has never aimed to be a desktop replacement for Ubuntu or Fedora, so you're wrong when implying it has.

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    That's the idea, anyway. But right now I see no one actively working on a replacement, so we're just going to live without a hand? Or really, due to the importance of the wifi and video chipsets that just stopped working on Debian --
    BULLSHIT! FUD! FLAMING! LIES! None of those devices 'stopped working' on Debian. Any binary blob removed from the default kernel can be easily installed via the package manager.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    12

    Default

    This will make RMS happy. It's the last bit thats missing in a complete free OS. And Debian is not *the* user friendly choice any more, since there is now ubuntu and fedora etc... so it's just a step that debian makes stand out. I like it, maybe some companies change their attitude.

    Too bad that companies often can't release the source code of these initialisation bits.

    Is there really no choice, AMD? Has nvidia a problem now that there is equivalent code in the public?

    The only problem I can see is that it could be easier to rip blurays etc...
    Everyone knows that changes on that code would make it most probably not faster and not more stable. So there would be just no support from the devs.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Yes, yes, a subjective opinion is clearly wrong in your false dichotomy. There is nothing in the four freedoms that states code must be human readable.
    You are obviously not informed. The FSF's Free Software Definition explicitly says "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."

    The Debian Free Software Guidelines say a very similar thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by curfew View Post
    Debian has never aimed to be a desktop replacement for Ubuntu or Fedora, so you're wrong when implying it has.
    Debian wants to be "The Universal Operating System" as indicated by the <title> element on http://www.debian.org/

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    113

    Default

    1. Debian IS the universal operating system.
    2. The firmware CAN be added - not too hard, even for a guy like me.
    3. Remember the Alice In Wonderland thing: "It takes all the running one can do to keep in the same place"? If Debian were not such intolerable FOSS hard asses, Debian would fade away into nothing.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •