12 ms·

Congratulations to the Debian team! An important change appears to be the inclusion of non-free firmware by default in the official install image for the first

by troad 3y ago

Congratulations to the Debian team! An important change appears to be the inclusion of non-free firmware by default in the official install image for the first time, as a result of this vote: https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003 https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003 Intriguing. I feel a little torn on this. One the one hand, I appreciate being able to install Debian from an official image onto a bothersome device. On the other, I can't help but feel we're losing something when even a purist distribution like Debian is forced to concede in the fight against proprietary blobs. Edit: dropped the word 'kernel' from 'proprietary blobs', as rightly picked up by kind commenters below.

GrumpySloth 3y ago
I've never had a computer which would work with the official ideologically-pure installer. Always had to use the non-free one. I'm glad this vote turned out the way it did.
- cesarb 3y ago
  > I've never had a computer which would work with the official ideologically-pure installer. I had more than once, back when I first installed Debian in the late 1900s and early 2000s, and I believe my experience wasn't unique. Back then, not requiring any loadable firmware was common; the hardware either didn't require firmware, or came with the full firmware in a ROM chip in the device itself. And that explains the issue: Debian is an old distribution, coming from these times when not having non-free firmware (or even any firmware at all) in the distribution was viable, and often fully usable.
  - NikkiA 3y ago
    Same, and I used to keep a little cache of 'known working without firmware issues' wlan cards (pcmcia), I probably still have some somewhere; though I don't think I have any pcmcia capable laptops anymore
progval 3y ago
For devices which have firmware, does it matter whether the firmware is loaded by the OS rather than hardcoded inside the device? The former at least gives an opportunity to fix bugs. And if I'm not mistaken, this isn't about kernel blobs (which run on the CPU as kernel code), only code that gets loaded on devices (including CPU microcode).
- zajio1am 3y ago
  There is a difference from legal point. If the firmware is hardcoded in device, you do not need to accept any license contract with IP holder. You do not need to copy it, and your right to run it is implied from ownership of the device. If the firmware is independent part bundled with OS, then anyone who wants to run it or even just distribute the OS must accept the license.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    Are you guessing what sounds logical to you or do you actually know the answer here? The legal system sometimes has definitions of copying that aren't that straightforward. I've seen in a copyright context judges talk about a computer loading software into RAM being copying. Intel microcode comes with a license: https://bugs.gentoo.org/664134 https://bugs.gentoo.org/664134
    - zajio1am 3y ago
      > Are you guessing what sounds logical to you or do you actually know the answer here? IANAL, but this is a general concept of exhaustion of IP rights when the IP is sold as a part of physical medium, see (28) and article 4 of EU copyright directive 2001/29. > The legal system sometimes has definitions of copying that aren't that straightforward. I've seen in a copyright context judges talk about a computer loading software into RAM being copying This is handled in (33) of the directive: "The exclusive right of reproduction should be subject to an exception to allow certain acts of temporary reproduction, which are transient or incidental reproductions, forming an integral and essential part of a technological process and carried out for the sole purpose of enabling either efficient transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made."
vbezhenar 3y ago
Firmware is not kernel blob. It's executed on separate device and has nothing to do with Linux. It's about open hardware, not open software. I don't think that it's worth to pursue this direction for Debian.
rollcat 3y ago
> On the other, I can't help but feel we're losing something when even a purist distribution like Debian is forced to concede in the fight against proprietary firmware blobs. The software needs hardware to run, and the whole point of the software is to make the hardware useful. If you can't use the hardware, what's the point of the software? In my book, freedom is a function of usefulness. No amount of redistributable source code has any value to me if I can't run it. Enabling the use of hardware I already own is not a compromise, it's a solution. It's what operating systems exist for. Debian is fulfilling its primary function. I'm glad that this necessity was finally recognised.
- still_grokking 3y ago
  I disagree. I'm very disappointed that this "necessity" came into existence in the first place. By being forced to install non-free BLOBs to be able to use "our" devices we actually admit that we're not the ones who actually control "our" computers. That's admitting full defeat! You're not the owner of "your" devices. Given that computers are now kind of "brain extensions" this means you're not in control of a substantial part of yourself. This has quite some implications! And I'm not even thinking about such things like future computer devices connected directly to human brains…
  - rollcat 3y ago
    Then don't buy hardware that requires non-free firmware.
  - arp242 3y ago
    You don't control the hardware in the first place. Can you modify the microchips on your hardware? Can you modify the printed circuits? Can you modify a ROM in hardware? In all those cases the answer is "not really", short of some spectacular reverse engineering effort and specialized hardware and skills that even most technical users don't have (you can modify anything with enough effort). All this focus on firmware seems rather misplaced.
    - 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
yrro 3y ago
Debian was never a purist distribution. If it was then there wouldn't have been a non-free section in the archive in the first place. The sad truth is that the Linux distributions recommended by the FSF have approximately zero users.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  at those great (FSF) heights, the light is bright but the air is thin!
- Kwpolska 3y ago
  Is it sad? Actually working Linux on real hardware is far more important than purity IMO.
  - nvy 3y ago
    >Actually working Linux on real hardware is far more important than purity IMO. I agree, but I also think this depends heavily on who you ask. Stallman for example would rather have poorer functionality than compromise his personal (extremist) ethical principles. There are a lot of folks who use laptops without wifi because the blobs are non free, so they're using ancient ThinkPads plugged into Ethernet. Much depends on your personal computing needs.
    - amiga386 3y ago
      > Stallman for example would rather have poorer functionality than compromise his personal (extremist) ethical principles. Stallman is open to pragmatism now and again. For example, on this very topic: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html > We can envision a future in which our personal fabricators can make chips, and our robots can assemble and solder them together with transformers, switches, keys, displays, fans and so on. In that future we will all make our own computers (and fabricators and robots), and we will all be able to take advantage of modified designs made by those who know hardware. The arguments for rejecting nonfree software will then apply to nonfree hardware designs too. > That future is years away, at least. In the meantime, there is no need to reject hardware with nonfree designs on principle.
bayindirh 3y ago
I was involved in the discussion, and I'm also torn on that issue, but at least you can disable installation of non-free firmware and install Debian without any non-free software. On the other hand, firmware is a convoluted issue. It was always present, but became increasingly visible over the years. While I'm a strong Free Software supporter, firmware is one of the hardest parts to convert, because of the IP it entails and trade secrets it embodies.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That and the simple fact that without it the hardware you've invested in won't work. So this is very much an individual choice, if you don't have such hardware you are fine but shouldn't be voting on whether or not someone who does have hardware that won't work without proprietary blobs has to go out to buy new gear. There are all kinds of considerations that go in to this decision (for instance: environmental impact) and I'm all for compromise when it helps out others. At the same time, you have a good point, these decisions are difficult and need to be very carefully weighted. Debian and RedHat are the two distributions that everybody else always ends up following so a major departure from established policy there has potentially huge impact downstream.
  - enriquto 3y ago
    > the simple fact that without it the hardware you've invested in won't work How is that different from the "if you want to run linux don't buy a winmodem" that we said convincingly twenty years ago ? Would you have approved that linux 2.0 added binary blobs to the kernel in order to correctly work with the hardware that you had invested in (some random winmodem) ?
    - boricj 3y ago
      Usually, people first buy a computer and then hear about Linux later, not the other way around.
      - 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
hahhahanananana 3y ago
> when even a purist distribution like Debian is forced to concede in the fight against proprietary blobs. As far as I'm aware, nothing has recently changed in this regard. It's more of a reflection on the mentality of young members, those who tend to treat software as if it's in a vacuum, separate from all the social and moral concerns of the meatspace.
labawi 3y ago
While I don't like proprietary firmware, I'm not sure if the line is drawn at a useful place. If you have firmware/software/whatever in a device, which is updateable (as opposed to mask-rom or hard logic), I'd much rather have it transparently managed by an OS I can control, than some EEPROM with often proprietary, inscrutable, I-ask-you-nicely-please-update-your-firmware update mechanism. IMO, the difference is: - with OS provided firmware (and preferably no writable storage), I can be sure my device is running the same SW as the rest of the world - with dozens of EEPROMs in my device, I can never be sure what is running on it. Firmware that is legally not redistributable is a non-trivial, though perhaps less bothersome issue. Firmware that requires manufaturer's signature is bothersome but I would still prefer it over inscrutable hidden firmware.

by troad 3y ago

GrumpySloth 3y ago

I've never had a computer which would work with the official ideologically-pure installer. Always had to use the non-free one. I'm glad this vote turned out the way it did.

cesarb 3y ago
> I've never had a computer which would work with the official ideologically-pure installer. I had more than once, back when I first installed Debian in the late 1900s and early 2000s, and I believe my experience wasn't unique. Back then, not requiring any loadable firmware was common; the hardware either didn't require firmware, or came with the full firmware in a ROM chip in the device itself. And that explains the issue: Debian is an old distribution, coming from these times when not having non-free firmware (or even any firmware at all) in the distribution was viable, and often fully usable.
- NikkiA 3y ago
  Same, and I used to keep a little cache of 'known working without firmware issues' wlan cards (pcmcia), I probably still have some somewhere; though I don't think I have any pcmcia capable laptops anymore

progval 3y ago

For devices which have firmware, does it matter whether the firmware is loaded by the OS rather than hardcoded inside the device? The former at least gives an opportunity to fix bugs. And if I'm not mistaken, this isn't about kernel blobs (which run on the CPU as kernel code), only code that gets loaded on devices (including CPU microcode).

zajio1am 3y ago
There is a difference from legal point. If the firmware is hardcoded in device, you do not need to accept any license contract with IP holder. You do not need to copy it, and your right to run it is implied from ownership of the device. If the firmware is independent part bundled with OS, then anyone who wants to run it or even just distribute the OS must accept the license.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  Are you guessing what sounds logical to you or do you actually know the answer here? The legal system sometimes has definitions of copying that aren't that straightforward. I've seen in a copyright context judges talk about a computer loading software into RAM being copying. Intel microcode comes with a license: https://bugs.gentoo.org/664134 https://bugs.gentoo.org/664134
  - zajio1am 3y ago
    > Are you guessing what sounds logical to you or do you actually know the answer here? IANAL, but this is a general concept of exhaustion of IP rights when the IP is sold as a part of physical medium, see (28) and article 4 of EU copyright directive 2001/29. > The legal system sometimes has definitions of copying that aren't that straightforward. I've seen in a copyright context judges talk about a computer loading software into RAM being copying This is handled in (33) of the directive: "The exclusive right of reproduction should be subject to an exception to allow certain acts of temporary reproduction, which are transient or incidental reproductions, forming an integral and essential part of a technological process and carried out for the sole purpose of enabling either efficient transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made."

vbezhenar 3y ago

Firmware is not kernel blob. It's executed on separate device and has nothing to do with Linux. It's about open hardware, not open software. I don't think that it's worth to pursue this direction for Debian.

rollcat 3y ago

> On the other, I can't help but feel we're losing something when even a purist distribution like Debian is forced to concede in the fight against proprietary firmware blobs. The software needs hardware to run, and the whole point of the software is to make the hardware useful. If you can't use the hardware, what's the point of the software? In my book, freedom is a function of usefulness. No amount of redistributable source code has any value to me if I can't run it. Enabling the use of hardware I already own is not a compromise, it's a solution. It's what operating systems exist for. Debian is fulfilling its primary function. I'm glad that this necessity was finally recognised.

still_grokking 3y ago
I disagree. I'm very disappointed that this "necessity" came into existence in the first place. By being forced to install non-free BLOBs to be able to use "our" devices we actually admit that we're not the ones who actually control "our" computers. That's admitting full defeat! You're not the owner of "your" devices. Given that computers are now kind of "brain extensions" this means you're not in control of a substantial part of yourself. This has quite some implications! And I'm not even thinking about such things like future computer devices connected directly to human brains…
- rollcat 3y ago
  Then don't buy hardware that requires non-free firmware.
- arp242 3y ago
  You don't control the hardware in the first place. Can you modify the microchips on your hardware? Can you modify the printed circuits? Can you modify a ROM in hardware? In all those cases the answer is "not really", short of some spectacular reverse engineering effort and specialized hardware and skills that even most technical users don't have (you can modify anything with enough effort). All this focus on firmware seems rather misplaced.
  - 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago

yrro 3y ago

Debian was never a purist distribution. If it was then there wouldn't have been a non-free section in the archive in the first place. The sad truth is that the Linux distributions recommended by the FSF have approximately zero users.

mistrial9 3y ago
at those great (FSF) heights, the light is bright but the air is thin!
Kwpolska 3y ago
Is it sad? Actually working Linux on real hardware is far more important than purity IMO.
- nvy 3y ago
  >Actually working Linux on real hardware is far more important than purity IMO. I agree, but I also think this depends heavily on who you ask. Stallman for example would rather have poorer functionality than compromise his personal (extremist) ethical principles. There are a lot of folks who use laptops without wifi because the blobs are non free, so they're using ancient ThinkPads plugged into Ethernet. Much depends on your personal computing needs.
  - amiga386 3y ago
    > Stallman for example would rather have poorer functionality than compromise his personal (extremist) ethical principles. Stallman is open to pragmatism now and again. For example, on this very topic: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html > We can envision a future in which our personal fabricators can make chips, and our robots can assemble and solder them together with transformers, switches, keys, displays, fans and so on. In that future we will all make our own computers (and fabricators and robots), and we will all be able to take advantage of modified designs made by those who know hardware. The arguments for rejecting nonfree software will then apply to nonfree hardware designs too. > That future is years away, at least. In the meantime, there is no need to reject hardware with nonfree designs on principle.

bayindirh 3y ago

I was involved in the discussion, and I'm also torn on that issue, but at least you can disable installation of non-free firmware and install Debian without any non-free software. On the other hand, firmware is a convoluted issue. It was always present, but became increasingly visible over the years. While I'm a strong Free Software supporter, firmware is one of the hardest parts to convert, because of the IP it entails and trade secrets it embodies.

jacquesm 3y ago
That and the simple fact that without it the hardware you've invested in won't work. So this is very much an individual choice, if you don't have such hardware you are fine but shouldn't be voting on whether or not someone who does have hardware that won't work without proprietary blobs has to go out to buy new gear. There are all kinds of considerations that go in to this decision (for instance: environmental impact) and I'm all for compromise when it helps out others. At the same time, you have a good point, these decisions are difficult and need to be very carefully weighted. Debian and RedHat are the two distributions that everybody else always ends up following so a major departure from established policy there has potentially huge impact downstream.
- enriquto 3y ago
  > the simple fact that without it the hardware you've invested in won't work How is that different from the "if you want to run linux don't buy a winmodem" that we said convincingly twenty years ago ? Would you have approved that linux 2.0 added binary blobs to the kernel in order to correctly work with the hardware that you had invested in (some random winmodem) ?
  - boricj 3y ago
    Usually, people first buy a computer and then hear about Linux later, not the other way around.
    - 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago

hahhahanananana 3y ago

> when even a purist distribution like Debian is forced to concede in the fight against proprietary blobs. As far as I'm aware, nothing has recently changed in this regard. It's more of a reflection on the mentality of young members, those who tend to treat software as if it's in a vacuum, separate from all the social and moral concerns of the meatspace.

labawi 3y ago

While I don't like proprietary firmware, I'm not sure if the line is drawn at a useful place. If you have firmware/software/whatever in a device, which is updateable (as opposed to mask-rom or hard logic), I'd much rather have it transparently managed by an OS I can control, than some EEPROM with often proprietary, inscrutable, I-ask-you-nicely-please-update-your-firmware update mechanism. IMO, the difference is: - with OS provided firmware (and preferably no writable storage), I can be sure my device is running the same SW as the rest of the world - with dozens of EEPROMs in my device, I can never be sure what is running on it. Firmware that is legally not redistributable is a non-trivial, though perhaps less bothersome issue. Firmware that requires manufaturer's signature is bothersome but I would still prefer it over inscrutable hidden firmware.