6 ms·

if FreeBSD had a copyleft license, maybe companies would have a reason to publish their drivers, or you could port drivers from Linux.

keewee7 4y ago
Aren't most Linux drivers closed source binary blobs?
- cowtools 4y ago
  The nvidia drivers sure are. I don't know about most drivers though. As for wifi, I own this ath9k card which I'm told is completely free, but I also own this intel 3160 chip that apparently requires some firmware to be loaded. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_wireless_drivers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_wire...
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    Funny, a decade ago the story was "atheros is evil" and Intel was the Linux darling. How things change..
- minimaul 4y ago
  No? The vast majority of hardware has OSS drivers (and they're usually even the better choice!) - the big exception here for average machines is NVIDIA.
  - anthk 4y ago
    AMD cards depend on non-free firmware.
    - tremon 4y ago
      And both Intel and AMD processors use non-free microcode. Firmware and drivers are distinct units, as only one of them runs on the CPU.
      - anthk 4y ago
        Not on libre distros. I mean, not more than loading the burned one.
- salawat 4y ago
  No. You're thinking firmware. The driver layer (code around firmware that initializes the hardware and marshals/unmarshals comms to/from the device).tends to be GPL lest it taint the kernel. The firmware on the other hand, is the last unconquered vestige of the Open Source landscape. Logic locking, and the prevalence/nature of fabless semiconductor IP tends to make that endeavor incredibly difficult.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  "most" and "drivers" are things that need specific usages to be true, but if you drop them and restate, you're absolutely right. It is really hard to have a complete personal computer on Linux or any other OS that doesn't require closed source / proprietary binary blobs.
  - anthk 4y ago
    Not at all, my Intel NUC except for the tiny wireless dongle totally runs with libre drivers.
    - colechristensen 4y ago
      Firmware blob free?
      - anthk 4y ago
        Yep, with Linux libre, I tried it. Now I run OpenBSD, and I could purge /etc/firmware with no issues if I wanted.
filmgirlcw 4y ago
That’s probably true but it cuts both ways too. I don’t know if the lack of copy left license is the problem as much as the momentum. The various Unix and BSD wars (that were predicated on a much different licensing challenge) and splintering of the communities has meant there was never a big way for developer or even manufacturer interest to really focus. OpenBSD has a very different philosophy related to drivers than FreeBSD and for very understandable reasons, most of the BSDs don’t want to use or touch GPL code. The copyleft nature of the GPL definitely helped Linux, but I don’t think it’s the only reason Linux was successful. But Linux got its shit together first and was able to benefit from that. Apple and to a lesser-extent, Solaris, show that you can still have broader hardware support and drivers without a copyleft license. I do think that if companies could easily port their Linux drivers, you’d see that happen. That’s absolutely a consequence of the license choice (and it’s a consequence from either license decision). But if there is a market for the BSDs in a particular area, I do think you see companies making drivers. The reality is, the market for people running FreeBSD on laptops is pretty small and probably not worth it for a lot of WiFi chipset makers. But if you had a specific industry where FreeBSD was widely deployed, I do think you’d have broader hardware support for things important to that industry, if nothing else.
- dark-star 4y ago
  From what I heard, at least some companies that use FreeBSD in their products do give back and upstream at least bits of their code (like Sony, NetApp, ...). Probably mostly improvements to existing kernel subsystems, maybe not drivers, if the hardware isn't freely available... but they still participate in development. At the end of the day, it is in their interest as it lessens the maintenance burden of forward-porting everything to every new kernel version.
  - filmgirlcw 4y ago
    Correct! And that’s sort of my point. But I don’t think a lot of those companies care about wifi drivers working on laptops, as an example. It is absolutely in their interest to help. But if people expect companies to just write a driver for X operating system, that’s not realistic. And if you could just port the Linux drivers, sure, that would be easier, but it wouldn’t change the fact that device makers still have the be able to prioritize where to put their resources. And laptop FreeBSD users is probably really low on most lists.
systemvoltage 4y ago
I am glad FreeBSD exists. Not every commercial venture has the luxury to release their source code, even if they wanted to. If you're writing software for banks or defense, the source needs to be closed. FreeBSD enables these companies to exist and while consumer grade drivers are not available, many things in FreeBSD are rock solid. Thanks to commercial contributions.
- doublerabbit 4y ago
  For my hobby server of 1000+ days [1] uptime with ram failing. A raid controller on the brink. I've amazed at the solidarity of FreeBSD. [1] https://i.redd.it/2omcrsz8ut691.png https://i.redd.it/2omcrsz8ut691.png * i am aware how in todays time you shouldn't, updates, and blah blah. But not required.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Are you saying FreeBSD is not robust? Did you confirm that it is the operating system that is leaking memory and not your application? If that's true, that's huge and you should file a report. Better yet, write a blog post about the details and how to recreate it.
    - kevans91 4y ago
      I read that as "the hardware is failing but FreeBSD is still trucking right along"
      - systemvoltage 4y ago
        My bad, I misunderstood as sarcasm.
- cowtools 4y ago
  I disagree. Work on permissively licensed software typically has the net effect of decreasing global freedom by reducing the costs of corporations to produce proprietary software. I try to avoid contributing to permissively-licensed software when possible, and I prefer to co-operate with businesses that use free software to avoid vendor lock-in as much as possible. Why should we all do free work for corporations? At least with the GPL you can negotiate a commercial license in exchange for money, but with a permissive license you forfeit your ability to do that. This article accurately sums up my point of view: https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/why-i-use-the-gpl-and-not-cuck-licenses/ https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/why-i-use-the-gpl-and-not-cuc... Also, the GPL does not require you to share the source code for programs that you do not distribute outside your company.
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
What company do you think is writing FreeBSD drivers for the framework - or any laptop - and not sharing them?
inopinatus 4y ago
If FreeBSD was encumbered with copyleft then half the contributors would leave, and the sectors in which it is widely used would seek an alternative. Pretty sure any “port” of Linux drivers would be in effect a substantial rewrite, for the dissimilar kernel structures and coding standards.
kergonath 4y ago
Yeah, because Linux’s copyleft is what forced nVidia to publish decent open source drivers 15 years ago.
- cowtools 4y ago
  I would say that linux isn't able to strong-arm nvidia into complying because nvidia can just go back to distributing their closed-source driver on permissively-licensed OSes such as BSD.
  - ninjin 4y ago
    I have a hard time making the parent comment even making logical sense. So the reason we are not seeing say open CUDA drivers from NVIDIA for Linux is that they instead distribute closed ones for permissively licensed operating systems such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Illumos, MINIX, Plan9, etc.? Which (apart from all lacking CUDA drivers) all universally have less support from hardware manufacturers both when it comes to open and closed drivers across the board? ERRNOLOGIC. You are aware that FreeBSD got closed NVIDIA graphics driver support about a decade after Linux? It is also the only operating system with a permissive license that I am aware of NVIDIA ever supporting. Alternatively, are you trying to refer to that some game consoles used FreeBSD as a basis and had proprietary NVIDIA drivers written for them? You are aware that there is nothing stopping them from doing exactly the same thing with Linux? You are free to believe in “licensing magic” being a solution as much as you want, but I think that you will find that it all has much more to do with what NVIDIA is ultimately all about: Shipping as many cards as is humanly possible while maintaining a borderline monopoly maximising profits.
    - magic_quotes 4y ago
      > FreeBSD got closed NVIDIA graphics driver support about a decade after Linux Ahem, https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=94fc89fbfbc7cd8886e9742a2889a5ed8ede4bbc https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=94fc89fbfbc7cd8886... > some game consoles used FreeBSD as a basis and had proprietary NVIDIA drivers written for them You mean proprietary AMD drivers? (Only PlayStation 4 and 5 are based on FreeBSD.)

keewee7 4y ago

Aren't most Linux drivers closed source binary blobs?

cowtools 4y ago
The nvidia drivers sure are. I don't know about most drivers though. As for wifi, I own this ath9k card which I'm told is completely free, but I also own this intel 3160 chip that apparently requires some firmware to be loaded. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_wireless_drivers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_wire...
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Funny, a decade ago the story was "atheros is evil" and Intel was the Linux darling. How things change..
minimaul 4y ago
No? The vast majority of hardware has OSS drivers (and they're usually even the better choice!) - the big exception here for average machines is NVIDIA.
- anthk 4y ago
  AMD cards depend on non-free firmware.
  - tremon 4y ago
    And both Intel and AMD processors use non-free microcode. Firmware and drivers are distinct units, as only one of them runs on the CPU.
    - anthk 4y ago
      Not on libre distros. I mean, not more than loading the burned one.
salawat 4y ago
No. You're thinking firmware. The driver layer (code around firmware that initializes the hardware and marshals/unmarshals comms to/from the device).tends to be GPL lest it taint the kernel. The firmware on the other hand, is the last unconquered vestige of the Open Source landscape. Logic locking, and the prevalence/nature of fabless semiconductor IP tends to make that endeavor incredibly difficult.
colechristensen 4y ago
"most" and "drivers" are things that need specific usages to be true, but if you drop them and restate, you're absolutely right. It is really hard to have a complete personal computer on Linux or any other OS that doesn't require closed source / proprietary binary blobs.
- anthk 4y ago
  Not at all, my Intel NUC except for the tiny wireless dongle totally runs with libre drivers.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    Firmware blob free?
    - anthk 4y ago
      Yep, with Linux libre, I tried it. Now I run OpenBSD, and I could purge /etc/firmware with no issues if I wanted.

filmgirlcw 4y ago

That’s probably true but it cuts both ways too. I don’t know if the lack of copy left license is the problem as much as the momentum. The various Unix and BSD wars (that were predicated on a much different licensing challenge) and splintering of the communities has meant there was never a big way for developer or even manufacturer interest to really focus. OpenBSD has a very different philosophy related to drivers than FreeBSD and for very understandable reasons, most of the BSDs don’t want to use or touch GPL code. The copyleft nature of the GPL definitely helped Linux, but I don’t think it’s the only reason Linux was successful. But Linux got its shit together first and was able to benefit from that. Apple and to a lesser-extent, Solaris, show that you can still have broader hardware support and drivers without a copyleft license. I do think that if companies could easily port their Linux drivers, you’d see that happen. That’s absolutely a consequence of the license choice (and it’s a consequence from either license decision). But if there is a market for the BSDs in a particular area, I do think you see companies making drivers. The reality is, the market for people running FreeBSD on laptops is pretty small and probably not worth it for a lot of WiFi chipset makers. But if you had a specific industry where FreeBSD was widely deployed, I do think you’d have broader hardware support for things important to that industry, if nothing else.

dark-star 4y ago
From what I heard, at least some companies that use FreeBSD in their products do give back and upstream at least bits of their code (like Sony, NetApp, ...). Probably mostly improvements to existing kernel subsystems, maybe not drivers, if the hardware isn't freely available... but they still participate in development. At the end of the day, it is in their interest as it lessens the maintenance burden of forward-porting everything to every new kernel version.
- filmgirlcw 4y ago
  Correct! And that’s sort of my point. But I don’t think a lot of those companies care about wifi drivers working on laptops, as an example. It is absolutely in their interest to help. But if people expect companies to just write a driver for X operating system, that’s not realistic. And if you could just port the Linux drivers, sure, that would be easier, but it wouldn’t change the fact that device makers still have the be able to prioritize where to put their resources. And laptop FreeBSD users is probably really low on most lists.

systemvoltage 4y ago

I am glad FreeBSD exists. Not every commercial venture has the luxury to release their source code, even if they wanted to. If you're writing software for banks or defense, the source needs to be closed. FreeBSD enables these companies to exist and while consumer grade drivers are not available, many things in FreeBSD are rock solid. Thanks to commercial contributions.

doublerabbit 4y ago
For my hobby server of 1000+ days [1] uptime with ram failing. A raid controller on the brink. I've amazed at the solidarity of FreeBSD. [1] https://i.redd.it/2omcrsz8ut691.png https://i.redd.it/2omcrsz8ut691.png * i am aware how in todays time you shouldn't, updates, and blah blah. But not required.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Are you saying FreeBSD is not robust? Did you confirm that it is the operating system that is leaking memory and not your application? If that's true, that's huge and you should file a report. Better yet, write a blog post about the details and how to recreate it.
  - kevans91 4y ago
    I read that as "the hardware is failing but FreeBSD is still trucking right along"
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      My bad, I misunderstood as sarcasm.
cowtools 4y ago
I disagree. Work on permissively licensed software typically has the net effect of decreasing global freedom by reducing the costs of corporations to produce proprietary software. I try to avoid contributing to permissively-licensed software when possible, and I prefer to co-operate with businesses that use free software to avoid vendor lock-in as much as possible. Why should we all do free work for corporations? At least with the GPL you can negotiate a commercial license in exchange for money, but with a permissive license you forfeit your ability to do that. This article accurately sums up my point of view: https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/why-i-use-the-gpl-and-not-cuck-licenses/ https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/why-i-use-the-gpl-and-not-cuc... Also, the GPL does not require you to share the source code for programs that you do not distribute outside your company.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago

What company do you think is writing FreeBSD drivers for the framework - or any laptop - and not sharing them?

inopinatus 4y ago

If FreeBSD was encumbered with copyleft then half the contributors would leave, and the sectors in which it is widely used would seek an alternative. Pretty sure any “port” of Linux drivers would be in effect a substantial rewrite, for the dissimilar kernel structures and coding standards.

kergonath 4y ago

Yeah, because Linux’s copyleft is what forced nVidia to publish decent open source drivers 15 years ago.

cowtools 4y ago
I would say that linux isn't able to strong-arm nvidia into complying because nvidia can just go back to distributing their closed-source driver on permissively-licensed OSes such as BSD.
- ninjin 4y ago
  I have a hard time making the parent comment even making logical sense. So the reason we are not seeing say open CUDA drivers from NVIDIA for Linux is that they instead distribute closed ones for permissively licensed operating systems such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Illumos, MINIX, Plan9, etc.? Which (apart from all lacking CUDA drivers) all universally have less support from hardware manufacturers both when it comes to open and closed drivers across the board? ERRNOLOGIC. You are aware that FreeBSD got closed NVIDIA graphics driver support about a decade after Linux? It is also the only operating system with a permissive license that I am aware of NVIDIA ever supporting. Alternatively, are you trying to refer to that some game consoles used FreeBSD as a basis and had proprietary NVIDIA drivers written for them? You are aware that there is nothing stopping them from doing exactly the same thing with Linux? You are free to believe in “licensing magic” being a solution as much as you want, but I think that you will find that it all has much more to do with what NVIDIA is ultimately all about: Shipping as many cards as is humanly possible while maintaining a borderline monopoly maximising profits.
  - magic_quotes 4y ago
    > FreeBSD got closed NVIDIA graphics driver support about a decade after Linux Ahem, https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=94fc89fbfbc7cd8886e9742a2889a5ed8ede4bbc https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=94fc89fbfbc7cd8886... > some game consoles used FreeBSD as a basis and had proprietary NVIDIA drivers written for them You mean proprietary AMD drivers? (Only PlayStation 4 and 5 are based on FreeBSD.)