3 ms·

Last time I tried to go into more depth about this one and related policy failings of the FSF and their associated projects here, it predictably descended into

Last time I tried to go into more depth about this one and related policy failings of the FSF and their associated projects here, it predictably descended into a long flamewar with FSF supporters, so I'll pass on it this time. But here's a link: https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1377402589386432512?s=20 https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1377402589386432512?s=20

netizen-936824 5y ago
Thank you! I'm a supporter of the FSF and FOSS but I also think these ideologies have to be taken in consideration with security tradeoffs and current mitigation implementations. Free software is wonderful, but we should be honest about its capability to respond to some security threats like this. I think it would be better to include such warnings, even if it included an extra 'proprietary blob' warning.
- marcan_42 5y ago
  Agreed. I'm a strong supporter of FOSS, from a pragmatic point of view of how it helps users and gives them more freedom. I do not believe ideological arguments against proprietary software should be used to make technical decisions that limit users' options or keep them uninformed, because the freedom to choose to use proprietary software is also important. Plus, the current policies of the FSF are completely inconsistent, out of touch with the reality of computing systems today, and based on arbitrary rules that end up reducing user freedom instead of increasing it (e.g. how they promote devices with firmware ROMs - which you do not have the freedom to inspect, modify, or replace with a free version - while deriding devices with firmware RAM and a blob, where you do have those freedoms).
  - lovelyviking 5y ago
    >Plus, the current policies of the FSF are completely inconsistent, out of touch with the reality of computing systems today, and based on arbitrary rules that end up reducing user freedom instead of increasing it (e.g. how they promote devices with firmware ROMs - which you do not have the freedom to inspect, modify, or replace with a free version - while deriding devices with firmware RAM and a blob, where you do have those freedoms). I would agree about inconsistency and say that unless everything is absolutely transparent including microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting solution. On the other hand isn't FSF do compromise as you wanted when you say: "I do not believe ideological arguments against proprietary software should be used to ... "
    - not2b 5y ago
      A consistent approach would forbid any use of Intel, AMD, or ARM processors (proprietary microcode in all of them) as well as any wireless technology (again, proprietary firmware). But the FSF has decided that if they can pretend that any proprietary code is somehow unchangeable hardware, or if not, if they don't tell people how to change it or if they even encourage vendors to prevent changing it, this somehow supports freedom.
      - ece 5y ago
        Or they're incentivizing firmware-less or open-firmware devices, while drawing a line where people can still choose certain devices that meet their purpose.
        marcan_42 5y ago
        But they aren't doing that; their Respects Your Freedom program is chock full of devices that run giant firmware blobs, which they conveniently ignore as long as they're on-device and not loaded from /lib/firmware, because as long as nobody notices they can keep believing they're living a blob-free life... Things the FSF has explicitly incentivized: - Moving firmware blobs from an obvious, inspectable place in the OS or bootloder to obscure firmware ROMs or Flash chips read by a convoluted process involving multiple CPUs, because somehow doing the latter makes it freedom-respecting? (Librem 5 story) - Physically destroying optional hardware that currently cannot be used without blobs, so users are not tempted to use those blobs, regardless of whether free alternatives might appear in the future (spoiler alert: they did) (Stallman trying to get bunnie to permanently disable the GPU in the Novena free hardware/software laptop to get certified).
        ece 5y ago
        Yeah, that makes little sense. Ideally you would want to point users to documented hardware, running QMK, or other (potentially reversed engineered) open-firmware.
    - marcan_42 5y ago

netizen-936824 5y ago

Thank you! I'm a supporter of the FSF and FOSS but I also think these ideologies have to be taken in consideration with security tradeoffs and current mitigation implementations. Free software is wonderful, but we should be honest about its capability to respond to some security threats like this. I think it would be better to include such warnings, even if it included an extra 'proprietary blob' warning.

marcan_42 5y ago
Agreed. I'm a strong supporter of FOSS, from a pragmatic point of view of how it helps users and gives them more freedom. I do not believe ideological arguments against proprietary software should be used to make technical decisions that limit users' options or keep them uninformed, because the freedom to choose to use proprietary software is also important. Plus, the current policies of the FSF are completely inconsistent, out of touch with the reality of computing systems today, and based on arbitrary rules that end up reducing user freedom instead of increasing it (e.g. how they promote devices with firmware ROMs - which you do not have the freedom to inspect, modify, or replace with a free version - while deriding devices with firmware RAM and a blob, where you do have those freedoms).
- lovelyviking 5y ago
  >Plus, the current policies of the FSF are completely inconsistent, out of touch with the reality of computing systems today, and based on arbitrary rules that end up reducing user freedom instead of increasing it (e.g. how they promote devices with firmware ROMs - which you do not have the freedom to inspect, modify, or replace with a free version - while deriding devices with firmware RAM and a blob, where you do have those freedoms). I would agree about inconsistency and say that unless everything is absolutely transparent including microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting solution. On the other hand isn't FSF do compromise as you wanted when you say: "I do not believe ideological arguments against proprietary software should be used to ... "
  - not2b 5y ago
    A consistent approach would forbid any use of Intel, AMD, or ARM processors (proprietary microcode in all of them) as well as any wireless technology (again, proprietary firmware). But the FSF has decided that if they can pretend that any proprietary code is somehow unchangeable hardware, or if not, if they don't tell people how to change it or if they even encourage vendors to prevent changing it, this somehow supports freedom.
    - ece 5y ago
      Or they're incentivizing firmware-less or open-firmware devices, while drawing a line where people can still choose certain devices that meet their purpose.
      - marcan_42 5y ago
        But they aren't doing that; their Respects Your Freedom program is chock full of devices that run giant firmware blobs, which they conveniently ignore as long as they're on-device and not loaded from /lib/firmware, because as long as nobody notices they can keep believing they're living a blob-free life... Things the FSF has explicitly incentivized: - Moving firmware blobs from an obvious, inspectable place in the OS or bootloder to obscure firmware ROMs or Flash chips read by a convoluted process involving multiple CPUs, because somehow doing the latter makes it freedom-respecting? (Librem 5 story) - Physically destroying optional hardware that currently cannot be used without blobs, so users are not tempted to use those blobs, regardless of whether free alternatives might appear in the future (spoiler alert: they did) (Stallman trying to get bunnie to permanently disable the GPU in the Novena free hardware/software laptop to get certified).
        ece 5y ago
        Yeah, that makes little sense. Ideally you would want to point users to documented hardware, running QMK, or other (potentially reversed engineered) open-firmware.
  - marcan_42 5y ago