3 ms·

The line between hardware and software has been heavily blurred in the past 30 years. The FSF continue to draw an arbitrary line where none can be drawn, and th

The line between hardware and software has been heavily blurred in the past 30 years. The FSF continue to draw an arbitrary line where none can be drawn, and then say only one side needs to be Free. Since there is no longer any clear line, this gives them the freedom (ha) to deceptively do so in a way that is convenient to them and makes their followers believe they are getting some kind of special Freedom, when in reality the FSF is just tweaking the definitions to make it work. Then they spin narratives about how this is important for not just freedom, but also security/privacy/etc, while their policies have absolutely nothing to do with improving users' security or privacy, as is made evident by the linux-libre issue, among many others. Actual assessment of the privacy/security impact of proprietary firmware on users is a much more nuanced topic, but the FSF are not interested in nuance, they just say "blobs (that you can see) bad".

medo-bear 5y ago
>Then they spin narratives about how this is important for not just freedom, but also security/privacy/etc, while their policies have absolutely nothing to do with improving users' security or privacy i think i have always held the opinion that for FSF and GNU their concept of security was "security through free software". that is free software (according to how its understood by them) comes first
onli 5y ago
There is no nuance there. Without free software there is no software freedom. If blobs are allowed at all that is already a measure to have a system that works in practice, but in no way makes it the position against closed software and blobs wrong. The people criticizing the FSF here act as if Stallman were wrong about these issues because he said it back then already. While in reality again and again he was right about how user freedoms are limited when the principles he outlined are not followed. To give Intel a way to distribute closed source software updates to your processor is definitely a security risk. And we know for certain the actors in the USA that try to use those security risks for their surveillance programs. Don't act like this world does not exist.
- kaba0 5y ago
  But you already run a processor with the very real possibility of backdoors from that very same entity. And let’s be honest, a zero day due to a CPU bug is orders of magnitude more likely to cause real harm than the fantasy of state actors deploying some blobs to your computer and have a look at my meme collection. 100% is never achievable but I much prefer having 85% than nothing.
  - arpa 5y ago
    I too settle for less bad dictatorship as means of governance.
- marcan_42 5y ago
  They aren't taking away Intel's ability to push updates to people's computers, because they never had that ability. What the FSF and that Linux fork are doing is taking away users' right to be informed about security vulnerabilities in their system so they can make the choice whether to trust Intel's update or not. By withholding that information they are effectively eliminating the choice, and restricting users' freedom.
  - onli 5y ago
    That's not true. If distros package closed source firmware updates the manufacturer has the ability to provide updates to people's computer via that system. I mean, that's the whole point and in a trustworthy environment that's a good thing. Maybe have a look at https://wiki.debian.org/Microcode#CPU_microcode_non-freeness https://wiki.debian.org/Microcode#CPU_microcode_non-freeness (I'm not sure whether I'm just misinterpreting your comment or whether there is a knowledge gap, just to make sure we talk about the same thing :) ). > By withholding that information they are effectively eliminating the choice, and restricting users' freedom. You are mixing up agency and software freedom, it's clear that you won't see eye to eye with the FSF as long as you do so. I'm not even vigorously defending not showing the note about existing firmware updates, if Guix really does so. I'd prefer a note. Just what it would mean and how problematic closed firmware would be seemed like it needed a clarification here.
jancsika 5y ago
> while their policies have absolutely nothing to do with improving users' security or privacy IIRC Stallman criticized Ubuntu for collecting users' search info by default-- something they used to do[1]. It's unfortunate to see a call to nuance paired with an exaggerated claim that is so easily disproven. 1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.en.html

medo-bear 5y ago

>Then they spin narratives about how this is important for not just freedom, but also security/privacy/etc, while their policies have absolutely nothing to do with improving users' security or privacy i think i have always held the opinion that for FSF and GNU their concept of security was "security through free software". that is free software (according to how its understood by them) comes first

onli 5y ago

There is no nuance there. Without free software there is no software freedom. If blobs are allowed at all that is already a measure to have a system that works in practice, but in no way makes it the position against closed software and blobs wrong. The people criticizing the FSF here act as if Stallman were wrong about these issues because he said it back then already. While in reality again and again he was right about how user freedoms are limited when the principles he outlined are not followed. To give Intel a way to distribute closed source software updates to your processor is definitely a security risk. And we know for certain the actors in the USA that try to use those security risks for their surveillance programs. Don't act like this world does not exist.

kaba0 5y ago
But you already run a processor with the very real possibility of backdoors from that very same entity. And let’s be honest, a zero day due to a CPU bug is orders of magnitude more likely to cause real harm than the fantasy of state actors deploying some blobs to your computer and have a look at my meme collection. 100% is never achievable but I much prefer having 85% than nothing.
- arpa 5y ago
  I too settle for less bad dictatorship as means of governance.
marcan_42 5y ago
They aren't taking away Intel's ability to push updates to people's computers, because they never had that ability. What the FSF and that Linux fork are doing is taking away users' right to be informed about security vulnerabilities in their system so they can make the choice whether to trust Intel's update or not. By withholding that information they are effectively eliminating the choice, and restricting users' freedom.
- onli 5y ago
  That's not true. If distros package closed source firmware updates the manufacturer has the ability to provide updates to people's computer via that system. I mean, that's the whole point and in a trustworthy environment that's a good thing. Maybe have a look at https://wiki.debian.org/Microcode#CPU_microcode_non-freeness https://wiki.debian.org/Microcode#CPU_microcode_non-freeness (I'm not sure whether I'm just misinterpreting your comment or whether there is a knowledge gap, just to make sure we talk about the same thing :) ). > By withholding that information they are effectively eliminating the choice, and restricting users' freedom. You are mixing up agency and software freedom, it's clear that you won't see eye to eye with the FSF as long as you do so. I'm not even vigorously defending not showing the note about existing firmware updates, if Guix really does so. I'd prefer a note. Just what it would mean and how problematic closed firmware would be seemed like it needed a clarification here.

jancsika 5y ago

> while their policies have absolutely nothing to do with improving users' security or privacy IIRC Stallman criticized Ubuntu for collecting users' search info by default-- something they used to do[1]. It's unfortunate to see a call to nuance paired with an exaggerated claim that is so easily disproven. 1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.en.html