4 ms·

> the resulting code is always upstreamed and open source Are you saying there is 0 binary blobs involved in running a modern Thinkpad? I find that hard to bel

> the resulting code is always upstreamed and open source Are you saying there is 0 binary blobs involved in running a modern Thinkpad? I find that hard to believe (although i would love it). I'm guessing there's a few blobs in the kernel tree itself, and even more firmware blobs the kernel doesn't even know about. On the topic of how Linux deals very little with actual hardware on modern machines, i really enjoyed this talk called "It's time for operating systems to rediscover hardware" [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36myc8wQhLo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36myc8wQhLo

jwildeboer 5y ago
No. I specifically said drivers, not firmware blobs. As long as these blobs are freely redistributable, I personally have no problems with them. I understand some people do and that is understandable, but I don’t subscribe to that. This started at a time where non-volatile memory for firmware became a cost factor and companies decided to save a few bucks on the BoM and upload the blob as part of the initialisation/boot process. Which is fine with me.
kiwijamo 5y ago
I think it is quite possible there is few if any binary blobs. I have a Lenovo X1 and everything pretty much works out of the box on base Arch Linux (and Debian before that). I think it also helps that my X1 has Intel graphics, Intel Wi-Fi, etc which has very good support which I know is not a given for others (e.g. Broadcom Wi-Fi, Nvidia graphics, et al). It is easily the best Linux experience I've ever had.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > I have a Lenovo X1 and everything pretty much works out of the box on base Arch Linux I'd be curious to know if it actually works well with linux-libre (Linux without the binary blobs). It's apparently not maintained as a distro package but is available on the AUR. Moreover, I'm still curious if all hardware functions without its own binary blobs. For example, is the networking firmware really free and replaceable, or is the proprietary firmware interoperable with a FLOSS driver? Likewise, is the entire system libreboot-able? Sorry for nitpicking, i'm just looking for precise answer to a topic that's not widely questioned/debated to my knowledge.
  - rincebrain 5y ago
    I believe none of the major wireless NIC vendors these days ship cards that will do anything useful without a nonfree firmware blob, for example.
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    If you wanted to use Linux-libre, wouldn't you just use Parabola?
formerly_proven 5y ago
GP is talking about drivers, you seem to be talking about firmware.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Correct, i'm slightly abusing semantics. I'm mixing them both under the category of "software that should be under user control", and interested about the FLOSS support for both.
  - jwildeboer 5y ago
    When firmware was stored in ROM/EEPROM, most FOSS folks had no problem with it. It was considered part of the hardware, so not that relevant. But when these were moved out of non-volatile memory (mostly for cost reasons), that changed the picture for some. While the result, after booting, is effectively the same. So no, I am not on the side that sees firmware blobs as something that MUST be made open. It would be good if it were, definitely. But it’s not a deal breaker for me, as long as the blobs are freely redistributable, for example via fwupd. Again, that’s my personal opinion.
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      > While the result, after booting, is effectively the same. I'm not sure it's exactly the same. First, because having embedded firmware formed an incentive for hardware manufacturers to test stuff and fix bugs before hitting the market. Second, because who gets to push updates to our machine has serious political/security implications. We have reached a situation where the OS we choose to run has less and less control over our computing, and i find that worrying. > it’s not a deal breaker for me, as long as the blobs are freely redistributable Thanks for your explanation. I can completely respect this position, although i personally disagree. If you ever get the chance to bring up the issue (libre firmware/drivers and librebooting), please spare a minute to raise our disenchantment and mention the possibility to work with other distros (such as Debian, who also has ties to Lenovo) hand-in-hand with hardware manufacturers to improve the situation for everyone. I don't exactly have any hope for it, but having Lenovo publish its entire hardware specs and playing nice with maintainers to provide libre firmware would definitely inspire confidence in their hardware. For the moment, it seems only Librem and Pine64 (and a few others) are manufacturers that can be approached on that topic. But like the original author (mmu_man) suggested, software freedom should be for everyone, not just people investing in specific hardware... and i'm pretty sure he would be thrilled to work on Haiku support for his Lenovo hardware given proper documentation ;)

jwildeboer 5y ago

No. I specifically said drivers, not firmware blobs. As long as these blobs are freely redistributable, I personally have no problems with them. I understand some people do and that is understandable, but I don’t subscribe to that. This started at a time where non-volatile memory for firmware became a cost factor and companies decided to save a few bucks on the BoM and upload the blob as part of the initialisation/boot process. Which is fine with me.

kiwijamo 5y ago

I think it is quite possible there is few if any binary blobs. I have a Lenovo X1 and everything pretty much works out of the box on base Arch Linux (and Debian before that). I think it also helps that my X1 has Intel graphics, Intel Wi-Fi, etc which has very good support which I know is not a given for others (e.g. Broadcom Wi-Fi, Nvidia graphics, et al). It is easily the best Linux experience I've ever had.

southerntofu 5y ago
> I have a Lenovo X1 and everything pretty much works out of the box on base Arch Linux I'd be curious to know if it actually works well with linux-libre (Linux without the binary blobs). It's apparently not maintained as a distro package but is available on the AUR. Moreover, I'm still curious if all hardware functions without its own binary blobs. For example, is the networking firmware really free and replaceable, or is the proprietary firmware interoperable with a FLOSS driver? Likewise, is the entire system libreboot-able? Sorry for nitpicking, i'm just looking for precise answer to a topic that's not widely questioned/debated to my knowledge.
- rincebrain 5y ago
  I believe none of the major wireless NIC vendors these days ship cards that will do anything useful without a nonfree firmware blob, for example.
- maccolgan 5y ago
  If you wanted to use Linux-libre, wouldn't you just use Parabola?

formerly_proven 5y ago

GP is talking about drivers, you seem to be talking about firmware.

southerntofu 5y ago
Correct, i'm slightly abusing semantics. I'm mixing them both under the category of "software that should be under user control", and interested about the FLOSS support for both.
- jwildeboer 5y ago
  When firmware was stored in ROM/EEPROM, most FOSS folks had no problem with it. It was considered part of the hardware, so not that relevant. But when these were moved out of non-volatile memory (mostly for cost reasons), that changed the picture for some. While the result, after booting, is effectively the same. So no, I am not on the side that sees firmware blobs as something that MUST be made open. It would be good if it were, definitely. But it’s not a deal breaker for me, as long as the blobs are freely redistributable, for example via fwupd. Again, that’s my personal opinion.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    > While the result, after booting, is effectively the same. I'm not sure it's exactly the same. First, because having embedded firmware formed an incentive for hardware manufacturers to test stuff and fix bugs before hitting the market. Second, because who gets to push updates to our machine has serious political/security implications. We have reached a situation where the OS we choose to run has less and less control over our computing, and i find that worrying. > it’s not a deal breaker for me, as long as the blobs are freely redistributable Thanks for your explanation. I can completely respect this position, although i personally disagree. If you ever get the chance to bring up the issue (libre firmware/drivers and librebooting), please spare a minute to raise our disenchantment and mention the possibility to work with other distros (such as Debian, who also has ties to Lenovo) hand-in-hand with hardware manufacturers to improve the situation for everyone. I don't exactly have any hope for it, but having Lenovo publish its entire hardware specs and playing nice with maintainers to provide libre firmware would definitely inspire confidence in their hardware. For the moment, it seems only Librem and Pine64 (and a few others) are manufacturers that can be approached on that topic. But like the original author (mmu_man) suggested, software freedom should be for everyone, not just people investing in specific hardware... and i'm pretty sure he would be thrilled to work on Haiku support for his Lenovo hardware given proper documentation ;)