3 ms·

>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

>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
> unless everything is absolutely transparent including microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting solution. Where do you draw the line? Is it sufficient if all code executing on a Turing-complete CPU is open? Does the CPU itself need to be open RTL? What about the synthesis process to turn that into a netlist and then into a chip design, does that need to be open? What about the standard cell library from the chip foundry, does that need to be open? Then what about the actual foundry process - do you need documentation on how the chips are produced? What about all the raw materials? What about the machines used to make the chips? You can keep going down the rabbit hole as deep as you want, but things will never be completely free. And you can't try to draw a random line, because the boundary between these steps isn't clear and that encourages cheating (which is what the FSF do). Freedom isn't the answer. Freedom was a noble idea from the computing paradigm of the 80s that just doesn't work any more as an absolute goal. The answer is to look beyond freedom and beyond meaningless absolutes, and towards what people get out of things being open. A device with more open source components is better because users have the freedom to modify them, and they are easier to audit to find security vulnerabilities. A device which sandboxes blobs - whether open or not - such that they cannot take over the system is better than one which does not. A device with proprietary firmware that you can modify and replace is better than one with signed firmware that you cannot. A device with signed firmware you can at least inspect is better than one with encrypted firmware you can't even see. A device with a firmware ROM you can't inspect or modify is worse than a device with signed and encrypted firmware blobs, because at least with the latter you can verify that the version you're running is what you expect, while you can't read the ROM at all. A device with encrypted firmware that only runs on boot and then is demonstrably out of the picture after that is better than one with privileged, resident blobs that continue running. A device with proprietary firmware that is at least redistributable to end-users of free OSes is better than one where it isn't. A device where it is reasonably easy to have end-users fetch said firmware even if it isn't redistributable is better than one where that is impractical. A device with mandatory user-controllable secure boot is better in some ways than a device with no secure boot at all, and worse in others. Nuance matters. Absolutist positions don't work any more.
- lovelyviking 5y ago
  >Freedom isn't the answer. Freedom was a noble idea from the computing paradigm of the 80s that just doesn't work any more as an absolute goal. I wish to ask you not to portrait reasonable expectations of certain freedoms as some kind of an absolute. It is reasonable to expect your computer to be under your full control and not under control of someone else. Freedom isn't the answer? Then what we are talking about? You have certain freedom of controlling your own mind and your own body. Freedom isn't the answer there too? The way I see it computer is becoming extension of your mind/body and as such owner should have at least the same level of control over it. >Where do you draw the line? It is unclear for me from your post whether you are talking about 'line respecting freedom' or 'line acceptable at the moment because freedom is 80s dream and irrelevant now because we've learned to accept any shit by calling it progress' Let's assume it's the first one because the second one I think you've described. The question about where you draw the line is a very hard one and I do not think I can or should answer it alone. Discussion is required to define it. In short it is something along the lines I've described already - every part of the computer design should be transparent and open for inspection to call it a freedom respecting solution. >Is it sufficient if all code executing on a Turing-complete CPU is open? Does the CPU itself need to be open RTL? What about the synthesis process to turn that into a netlist and then into a chip design, does that need to be open? What about the standard cell library from the chip foundry, does that need to be open? Then what about the actual foundry process - do you need documentation on how the chips are produced? What about all the raw materials? What about the machines used to make the chips? Basically all answers there are Yes. Again what it means in practice should be discussed but basically any reasonable person including you and anyone with your level of expertise should be able to say honestly that, yes indeed this computer is under full control of the owner and the owner only. It has no backdoor or ability to be remotely updated without the owner intention. I think your question implies that there is one line to draw. If so then it is the one I've described above but I think it is better to draw a few lines with levels of freedom provided and mark every computer produced accordingly. >Nuance matters. Absolutist positions don't work any more. Do they? Wouldn't you say that Apple have a full control over their Mac M1? You are working with it so you should know exactly the answer to that question. With all their compromises the main door is under their full control and they hold they key to themselves, correct me if I am wrong. If you ask today in practical terms what is a reasonable line to draw, let's draw it where Apple have done it except the key should be in the hands of the owner, not Apple. How about that? Would it satisfy? Actually you are the first one to ask about a proper line to draw but you should be honest about. You should be able to say "yes, this computer is under my full control" just like now Apple can say it's under their control and they guard it very carefully so perhaps they have figured where the line is.

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

> unless everything is absolutely transparent including microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting solution. Where do you draw the line? Is it sufficient if all code executing on a Turing-complete CPU is open? Does the CPU itself need to be open RTL? What about the synthesis process to turn that into a netlist and then into a chip design, does that need to be open? What about the standard cell library from the chip foundry, does that need to be open? Then what about the actual foundry process - do you need documentation on how the chips are produced? What about all the raw materials? What about the machines used to make the chips? You can keep going down the rabbit hole as deep as you want, but things will never be completely free. And you can't try to draw a random line, because the boundary between these steps isn't clear and that encourages cheating (which is what the FSF do). Freedom isn't the answer. Freedom was a noble idea from the computing paradigm of the 80s that just doesn't work any more as an absolute goal. The answer is to look beyond freedom and beyond meaningless absolutes, and towards what people get out of things being open. A device with more open source components is better because users have the freedom to modify them, and they are easier to audit to find security vulnerabilities. A device which sandboxes blobs - whether open or not - such that they cannot take over the system is better than one which does not. A device with proprietary firmware that you can modify and replace is better than one with signed firmware that you cannot. A device with signed firmware you can at least inspect is better than one with encrypted firmware you can't even see. A device with a firmware ROM you can't inspect or modify is worse than a device with signed and encrypted firmware blobs, because at least with the latter you can verify that the version you're running is what you expect, while you can't read the ROM at all. A device with encrypted firmware that only runs on boot and then is demonstrably out of the picture after that is better than one with privileged, resident blobs that continue running. A device with proprietary firmware that is at least redistributable to end-users of free OSes is better than one where it isn't. A device where it is reasonably easy to have end-users fetch said firmware even if it isn't redistributable is better than one where that is impractical. A device with mandatory user-controllable secure boot is better in some ways than a device with no secure boot at all, and worse in others. Nuance matters. Absolutist positions don't work any more.

lovelyviking 5y ago
>Freedom isn't the answer. Freedom was a noble idea from the computing paradigm of the 80s that just doesn't work any more as an absolute goal. I wish to ask you not to portrait reasonable expectations of certain freedoms as some kind of an absolute. It is reasonable to expect your computer to be under your full control and not under control of someone else. Freedom isn't the answer? Then what we are talking about? You have certain freedom of controlling your own mind and your own body. Freedom isn't the answer there too? The way I see it computer is becoming extension of your mind/body and as such owner should have at least the same level of control over it. >Where do you draw the line? It is unclear for me from your post whether you are talking about 'line respecting freedom' or 'line acceptable at the moment because freedom is 80s dream and irrelevant now because we've learned to accept any shit by calling it progress' Let's assume it's the first one because the second one I think you've described. The question about where you draw the line is a very hard one and I do not think I can or should answer it alone. Discussion is required to define it. In short it is something along the lines I've described already - every part of the computer design should be transparent and open for inspection to call it a freedom respecting solution. >Is it sufficient if all code executing on a Turing-complete CPU is open? Does the CPU itself need to be open RTL? What about the synthesis process to turn that into a netlist and then into a chip design, does that need to be open? What about the standard cell library from the chip foundry, does that need to be open? Then what about the actual foundry process - do you need documentation on how the chips are produced? What about all the raw materials? What about the machines used to make the chips? Basically all answers there are Yes. Again what it means in practice should be discussed but basically any reasonable person including you and anyone with your level of expertise should be able to say honestly that, yes indeed this computer is under full control of the owner and the owner only. It has no backdoor or ability to be remotely updated without the owner intention. I think your question implies that there is one line to draw. If so then it is the one I've described above but I think it is better to draw a few lines with levels of freedom provided and mark every computer produced accordingly. >Nuance matters. Absolutist positions don't work any more. Do they? Wouldn't you say that Apple have a full control over their Mac M1? You are working with it so you should know exactly the answer to that question. With all their compromises the main door is under their full control and they hold they key to themselves, correct me if I am wrong. If you ask today in practical terms what is a reasonable line to draw, let's draw it where Apple have done it except the key should be in the hands of the owner, not Apple. How about that? Would it satisfy? Actually you are the first one to ask about a proper line to draw but you should be honest about. You should be able to say "yes, this computer is under my full control" just like now Apple can say it's under their control and they guard it very carefully so perhaps they have figured where the line is.