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)
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Mission Of Coreboot - Is It About Open-Source Or Appeasing Hardware Vendors?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by c117152 View PostOther times they're drivers and services for Intel's on-rom OS to html and vnc services that can be backdoored
- Likes 1
Comment
-
-
-
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.
- Likes 6
Comment
-
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.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by loganj View Postso coreboot is only a dream as long as vendors does not open their blobs?
Comment
-
Originally posted by pal666 View Postisn't it crazy to prefer on-rom backdoorable os to be unfixable? well, crazy people are free to continue using old buggy os image.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment