3 ms·

Be aware that "Ubuntu" doesn't mean "Free software"! 9 years ago I bought a new Dell XPS 13 with Ubuntu. Everything has been fine until one month ago when I de

by Bost 4y ago

Be aware that "Ubuntu" doesn't mean "Free software"! 9 years ago I bought a new Dell XPS 13 with Ubuntu. Everything has been fine until one month ago when I decided to natively install Guix OS. The wireless card "Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6235 (2x2 b/g/+ Bluetooth Combo Card)" has non-free, proprietary firmware. So no native(!) Guix on my Dell XPS. (Only hosted)

chme 4y ago
Ubuntu did pioneer easy proprietary driver integration into their distro AFAIK. About wireless that is to be expected with most (all modern?) Intel Wifi cards... I mean there is proprietary firmware running on most/all modern Laptops, the difference is that many controllers have their own flash and don't rely on the os to feed them their firmware...
- Bost 4y ago
  That means, on modern Laptops, the firmware is "sitting inside" proprietary hardware, so that it is irrelevant if this firmware is proprietary or not. If this is conclusion of mine is correct(?), that means: even less motivation for modern Ubuntu versions to include proprietary blobs.
  - bubblethink 4y ago
    firmware for Intel's wifi cards is hosted in the linux firmware repo with a redistributable license. Any wifi card made in the last 10+ years requires firmware.
  - chme 4y ago
    That is a distinction without difference in regards to proprietary definition. If you are a purist that doesn't like proprietary firmware, it doesn't matter were that firmware is located. However, on other issues internal flash means the controller is more expensive and more difficult to update on bugs or security issues, so putting firmware on in the filesystem makes it much more visible, easier to manage and cost-effective. This is not possible for many controllers, like the boot rom, keyboard, touchscreen, hdd/ssd controller, because they are needed to work before there is a filesystem available in many cases. But in case of Wifi and Bluetooth, doing it like this is possible and preferred for most people I guess. Of course many people would prefer having only FOSS firmware, but even in that case they would prefer having as much firmware as possible visible on the filesystem instead of hidden away on some flash for those reasons.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Mandrake and SuSE were the actual pioneers in that regard.
rlpb 4y ago
This applies to anything based on Linux, where they've made the choice to support proprietary hardware like this. It's only platforms that explicitly choose to strip that proprietary firmware support that are affected by this. The Free Software Foundation's view is that this type of support should be avoided, so I guess that applies to Guix, too?

by Bost 4y ago

chme 4y ago

Ubuntu did pioneer easy proprietary driver integration into their distro AFAIK. About wireless that is to be expected with most (all modern?) Intel Wifi cards... I mean there is proprietary firmware running on most/all modern Laptops, the difference is that many controllers have their own flash and don't rely on the os to feed them their firmware...

Bost 4y ago
That means, on modern Laptops, the firmware is "sitting inside" proprietary hardware, so that it is irrelevant if this firmware is proprietary or not. If this is conclusion of mine is correct(?), that means: even less motivation for modern Ubuntu versions to include proprietary blobs.
- bubblethink 4y ago
  firmware for Intel's wifi cards is hosted in the linux firmware repo with a redistributable license. Any wifi card made in the last 10+ years requires firmware.
- chme 4y ago
  That is a distinction without difference in regards to proprietary definition. If you are a purist that doesn't like proprietary firmware, it doesn't matter were that firmware is located. However, on other issues internal flash means the controller is more expensive and more difficult to update on bugs or security issues, so putting firmware on in the filesystem makes it much more visible, easier to manage and cost-effective. This is not possible for many controllers, like the boot rom, keyboard, touchscreen, hdd/ssd controller, because they are needed to work before there is a filesystem available in many cases. But in case of Wifi and Bluetooth, doing it like this is possible and preferred for most people I guess. Of course many people would prefer having only FOSS firmware, but even in that case they would prefer having as much firmware as possible visible on the filesystem instead of hidden away on some flash for those reasons.
pjmlp 4y ago
Mandrake and SuSE were the actual pioneers in that regard.

rlpb 4y ago

This applies to anything based on Linux, where they've made the choice to support proprietary hardware like this. It's only platforms that explicitly choose to strip that proprietary firmware support that are affected by this. The Free Software Foundation's view is that this type of support should be avoided, so I guess that applies to Guix, too?