Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Mission Of Coreboot - Is It About Open-Source Or Appeasing Hardware Vendors?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    while having source for microcode blobs would be nice, there is no difference between closed microcode and closed hardware(open hardware would be nice as well). it is still closed and you have no control over it. but open source coreboot is still nice because you have control over coreboot parts. it's just like open source linux is still good even when it's main purpose is to run proprietary game. only idiot would claim that it's as bad as windows(and there is no shortage of such idiots, you can easily spot them in this thread)
    Last edited by pal666; 09-08-2019, 11:17 AM.

    Comment


    • #12
      Afaik bread isn't carbs, fruits are.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by c117152 View Post
        Other times they're drivers and services for Intel's on-rom OS to html and vnc services that can be backdoored
        isn't it crazy to prefer on-rom backdoorable os to be unfixable? well, crazy people are free to continue using old buggy os image.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by loganj View Post
          so coreboot is only a dream as long as vendors does not open their blobs?
          no, coreboot is only a dream as long as it supports zero contemporary motherboards. i would be using it since long ago if it was supporting my hardware

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by cl333r View Post
            Afaik bread isn't carbs, fruits are.
            What? I disagree. Breads are made of wheat and other crops that contain mostly starch which is a carbohydrate. Sure, fruits have glucose (sugar) which is also a carbohydrate.

            Comment


            • #16
              This is an absurd argument. Having something open-source in your firmware is better than nothing. Sure, things like microcode or chipset functions might be closed, but so what? It's not like you're going to know how to edit them anyway without bricking your system. At least with Coreboot, you could (in theory) write your own fully open-source firmware. Good luck trying to do that on existing fully-closed systems.

              You can use Linux for the purpose of running closed-source software, and even run closed-source drivers. You can use RISC-V as a medium to operate proprietary hardware. Does that mean these exist to appease the corporations that use them? No of course not, that's stupid. Just because someone can take advantage of something, doesn't mean it was meant for that person to do so.
              To put it in another light:
              The purpose of a baseball bat is to hit a baseball. That's it. If someone decides to stick nails and barbed wire in it, does that suddenly mean the manufacturer is deliberately selling murder weapons?

              Coreboot is open source and it should remain labeled that way. Whatever people decide to do with it does NOT detract from that. Sure, it's a bit unfair for a company to say a computer's firmware is "open source" when chunks of it really aren't, but, that's not Coreboot's fault.

              Comment


              • #17
                A mission statement should not be too detailed. But it can point to pages with additional relevant information. So some mention of the intent to be as transparent and open source as possible and a statement that currently there are still binary blobs included. Then a link to what those blobs are and what the alternatives are.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by loganj View Post
                  so coreboot is only a dream as long as vendors does not open their blobs?
                  So long there no or not enough competition from open source hardware [manufacturer], provided under a GPL3 like licenses. To mention also, RISC-V it's a BSD license, so it's a risky license. Much better viral than liberal,

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Who cares? Any user that goes out of their way to replace their motherboard firmware is going to understand the limitations regardless.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                      isn't it crazy to prefer on-rom backdoorable os to be unfixable? well, crazy people are free to continue using old buggy os image.
                      What's preferable is OpenBMC. On present hardware, what's preferable is me_cleaner. Letting Intel and the vendors maintain their hold on our hardware by allowing them to put firmwares in the kernel and coreboot is not something that we should support on the PC. 4k TV boxes, smart TVs, smartphones and consoles are everywhere. Leave the DRM there and keep the PC a free general purpose computing machine.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X