GNU Linux-libre 5.13-gnu Released For The Latest Kernel Deblobbing

[andyprough]

Works fine on my 2 year old laptop with i7 and NVMe. You scared little goobers go back to your Windows 10 clone distros like Ubuntu and Fedora, leave the actual computer work to the adults.

[blackiwid]

Yes have bought 2 years ago a used netbook there it runs, then on my x220 that I still have (with special japanese keys aka many thumb keys, semi ergonomically ) that said the wlan chip did not run, not worth for me to change it currently so I installed in guix the repo for the vanilla kernel, but besides that it works and I could replace the wlan chip. Noticed me that this part is a bad part in the notebook

And I like to have to do something to get the vanilla kernel, because the more people get inconvenienced be it very slightly over using blobs, the more the vendors have a incentive to give free stuff.

Because it lowers the value for the user of this particular device and brand... but it's also interesting to know which part are problematic.

You could make the same argument with the vanilla kernel and each distro that don't just come with the nvdia blobs somehow automatically activated or with 1 click... so then fedora is shit, too? Or Debian?

Heck debian while it comes with the vanilla kernel but you have to install the firmware separately and you have to manually find out which is missing and install them.

[Developer12]

Is it really "freedom" if it doesn't run on anything?

From what I know (so not much) Raptor computing is about the furthest ahead on all fully open sourced hardware, but even with them there are pieces that still require blobs to load.

The only blob I know of is the firmware for their ethernet interface, which has now been replaced by an open-source alternative on every new machine they ship. Their CPUs don't support microcode, so I don't know what other blobs there could possibly be.

[Developer12]

The lack of freedom to run software/drivers is not freedom.

How does “blocking” usage of anything the user wishes to install “freedom”???

This has become a serious and pervasive issue in free software. It's absolutely responsible for the majority of individual backlash against it.

The great innovation of the GPL was to bind developers' hands so that nothing could ever be relicenced under any other terms, FORCING them to release any changes they made as likewise open source.

Unfortunately, it seems free software has become a little too comfortable with binding people against their will. There's now a significant faction that also seeks to strip freedoms from the users free software is meant to protect.

There's lots of talk about users being too weak-willed to resist the temptations of proprietary software and how it's in their best interest to simply have the choice taken away from them. [1] So much for user agency. It's both incredibly insulting to users, and a direct violation of the spirit and fundamental principles of free software. [2] It not only erodes it's credibility but is quite literally rotting free software from the inside out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

[1] This has extended beyond the loading of firmware needed to make various devices work (inconvenient, but arguably not harmful).

With the refusal to load microcode patches, they've left users with no way to mitigate chip errata that crashes their computer, corrupts their data (eg intel's imminent disablement of TSX), or grants privileged access (eg. NMI root exploit on piledriver). This is compounded by recent intense focus on hardware vulnerabilities, started Spectre. Just a week or two ago, Intel released a microcode patch disabling zero-fill optimizations because it can (without the use of CPU speculation) be used to extract information from cryptography libraries.

It also now extends to the outright omission of warnings intended to prevent harm. Not too long ago, those releasing these "deblobed" kernels decided to strip warning messages from the kernel which advised people they were vulnerable to various attacks for which updates microcode is mandatory for mitigation. How are these textual and factually correct warning messages worthy of removal in a"de-blobed" kernel? The answer is that they tempt the loose-moralled user down the road of proprietary software temptation. For more information, see: https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1377402589386432512

[1b] For the record, your CPU ships with far more microcode than these patches can contain. Blocking their use does not eliminate anyone's dependence on proprietary software in any meaningful way. *Any* CPU (AMD or intel) also contains many additional embedded processors for everything from PHY calibration to power/temperature management. One of the great achievements of Raptor's OpenPOWER machines is the unrestricted use of open-source firmware on these management cores.

[2] There's also the more scandalous angle: if you believe that a lot of the original software under the control of the FSF is fossilizing into irrelevance, then this is a perfect anti-competitive move to maintain their control. They can't actually produce software that competes honestly in features and capability (anything that isn't "freedom"), so it's better to just lock everything better out (so the theory goes). https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1402946876987482119

[Developer12]

Smooth brain posts at each Linux-libre release. Are you guys like, 12? If you want to know what makes libre software libre, don't wast your time here and go to GNU (still can't read or entertain concepts such as pareto-efficiency in your head? Too bad!). If you want to know what makes Linux-libre actually practical, imagine simply wanting to be sure no blobs can be loaded. Easy usecase, right?

It's not the use case. It's the stripping of user freedoms by Linux-Libre. Plain and simple.

[alcalde]

I'll never forget many years ago when The Linux Action Show was a thing that an innocent fan of one of the "libre" distros successfully asked LAS to review the distro. He excitedly posted on the distro's forum that LAS had agreed to review it. The core maintainers were not thrilled at all. They posted that they wished he hadn't done that. They believed that the LAS hosts would focus the review on questions such as whether the browser could run Flash or MP3s would play rather than on "software freedom". They suggested another program where they said they were able to "successfully steer" the hosts into a discussion on software freedom in the past and shift the review away from the topic of usability.

That's when I realized that anyone using the word "libre" is in the grip of a strong ideology, almost cult-like. They're not interested in making good software; they're interested in fulfilling an ideological agenda, namely the eradication of all closed-source software.

It's funny that recently Apple Computer, often the target of free software advocates, was in the news for arguing that locking iPhones to Apple's curated App Store was good for the consumer and somehow gave them more choice (?!?). Now we see an example of their supposed ideological opposites also arguing that preventing you from running software they don't approve of is somehow in your best interests and making your life better.

[phoron]

Unfortunately, it seems free software has become a little too comfortable with binding people against their will.

Do you feel better now that you vented your hate ?
linux-libre does not bind anybody against their will. What it does it clearly advertises and if you don't want it you don't install linux-libre.
kernel.org instead claims to offer a free kernel and keeps closed bits and hooks in there. That's more deception and binding people against their will than what linux-libre does.
Linux-libre works great in wandboard, RockPro64, Talos II, Blackbird, etc.
You claim there are security threats because you don't consider that those CPUs themselves (Intel, AMD) are a security threat. If the threat is unvoluntary and exploited by others they may offer a patch, if its voluntary and exploited by the vendor or allies, they won't patch it.

[dvd2]

I'll never forget many years ago when The Linux Action Show was a thing that an innocent fan of one of the "libre" distros successfully asked LAS to review the distro. He excitedly posted on the distro's forum that LAS had agreed to review it. The core maintainers were not thrilled at all. They posted that they wished he hadn't done that. They believed that the LAS hosts would focus the review on questions such as whether the browser could run Flash or MP3s would play rather than on "software freedom". They suggested another program where they said they were able to "successfully steer" the hosts into a discussion on software freedom in the past and shift the review away from the topic of usability.

That's when I realized that anyone using the word "libre" is in the grip of a strong ideology, almost cult-like. They're not interested in making good software; they're interested in fulfilling an ideological agenda, namely the eradication of all closed-source software.

It's funny that recently Apple Computer, often the target of free software advocates, was in the news for arguing that locking iPhones to Apple's curated App Store was good for the consumer and somehow gave them more choice (?!?). Now we see an example of their supposed ideological opposites also arguing that preventing you from running software they don't approve of is somehow in your best interests and making your life better.

The amount of trolls on this site is just amazing. Or maybe it's really that hard to understand that one of the teeny tiny bit of differences between blobs and free software is whether you are considered a criminal by the legal system for modyfing and releasing the modified software. Or in many cases even what you use it for. How can people be this stupid? If you want to play trash videogames you are free to use any of the billion distros that pull in all the blobs for that (or even windows for that matter). The fact that those exist along with a version for people that cannot or will not use blobs in their system is one of the reasons free software is so awesome.

The trolling on this site is so petty and arrogant. Do you really think you are entitled to dictate the developers free time. I really don't know why the hell some of you run any kind of gnu/linux if the open nature of it so offends you.

[Developer12]

linux-libre does not bind anybody against their will. What it does it clearly advertises and if you don't want it you don't install linux-libre.
kernel.org instead claims to offer a free kernel and keeps closed bits and hooks in there. That's more deception and binding people against their will than what linux-libre does.

It binds people against their will by stripping the user of the freedom to load firmware and microcode, and by removing legitimate warnings of potential harm. I don't particularly care about their advertisement or whether people use it. I care about the hypocritical and pervasive line of reasoning that leads to it in the first place, guiding people to strip rights from others.

You can't both call yourself a protector of user freedom AND remove capabilities from the user. It's a fundamental betrayal of of the zeroth freedom of free software.

kernel.org instead claims to offer a free kernel and keeps closed bits and hooks in there. That's more deception and binding people against their will than what linux-libre does.

All of what the vanilla kernel does is plain for everyone to see, both in the code and by reading the fucking manual. Unlike Linux-Libre, it doesn't strip anyone of any freedoms of what they may or may not physically accomplish. Again, back to Freedom 0.

Linux-libre works great in wandboard, RockPro64, Talos II, Blackbird, etc.

Yes, linux runs on a lot of different computers. Linux Libre isn't special in that regard.

You claim there are security threats because you don't consider that those CPUs themselves (Intel, AMD) are a security threat. If the threat is unvoluntary and exploited by others they may offer a patch, if its voluntary and exploited by the vendor or allies, they won't patch it.

How very melodramatic. The only truly trustable CPU that can clear your high bar is something like either Betrusted, Libre BMC, or Libre SoC, all custom CPUs on an FPGA. Unfortunately, most people choose not to run these for very real practical constraints. (namely, all of them are experimental and cannot actually be physically obtained) Every other CPU you have listed is equally proprietary to those from AMD/intel in terms of the release of their HDL source or masks, which is the only potential remedy for the boogeyman of secret user-subverting circuitry.

But what of the Intel Management Engine, I hear you ask. Indeed, what of it. And various EME/DRM extentions. And clock multiplier locks. Etc. All of these remain equally in place under Linux Libre.

The fact is, Linux Libre strips the user of freedoms they may otherwise exercise, by design, on the platforms its modifications are intended to address.

[OneTimeShot]

The fact is, Linux Libre strips the user of freedoms they may otherwise exercise, by design, on the platforms its modifications are intended to address.

Man you write a lot of garbage. There is nothing in Linux Libre that stops you installing BLOBs if you want to: it just doesn't ship them by default. Just compile the modules you want (if necessary), drop in the firmware files, and off you go.

Alternatively, maybe people who are actually interested in this stuff explicitly buy hardware that already has fully open firmware anyway? Just like some people only buy AMD/Intel GPUs for Open Source driver support.

Why do you want to deny people the ability to see which bits of Linux work without the hardware blobs? Does it hurt you personally in some way?