5 ms·

Are you hoping the Free Software Foundation _doesn't_ prioritize Free Software? For people who are okay with random bits of proprietary software doing who-knows

by tmtvl 1y ago

Are you hoping the Free Software Foundation _doesn't_ prioritize Free Software? For people who are okay with random bits of proprietary software doing who-knows-what on their devices there are various alternatives already.

Dylan16807 1y ago
That's not even close to what they said. They're saying approval of any who-knows-what code shouldn't be decided based on how it's loaded.
degamad 1y ago
I initially made the same misread that you did... The OP's point is, having the firmware permanently burnt-in on a ROM chip vs loaded as a binary blob via a driver doesn't change the "non-free"-ness of the firmware itself. So opting for hardware which has a "fully-open-source" driver, but runs a binary blob encoded into the hardware, doesn't make the system fully open. It's a take for a more Free system, not for accepting binary blobs. (Or I guess for acknowledging that if you're willing to allow binary blobs stored in hardware, then dynamically-loaded binary blobs doesn't change the "free"-ness.)
charcircuit 1y ago
To me: Open Source Firmware signed by OS > Firmware blob signed by device manufacturer > Firmware blob hardcoded by device Manufacturer The FSF treats hardcoded firmware blobs as "free" and updatable firmware blobs as nonfree despite there not being a big difference between them in practice. And practical differences like being able to fix security issues benefits users.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  > And practical differences like being able to fix security issues benefits users. More often than not these updates are not actually benefits to the users.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    Can you provide such an example? Because of bugs in the new version? A lot of the time old versions can still be loaded.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      Just in the last couple of days: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45568700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45568700 There are by now thousands of examples of this, I wonder why you would ask for an example, this is about as uncontroversial as the sun going up tomorrow.
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        The number of times that Linux distros, free software, has made my computer unusable, requiring me to manually fix it, is uncountable. Bugs from OS updates is still entirely possible even without updating firmware blobs.
        jacquesm 1y ago
        To a driver whose car just died on I 405 in heavy traffic that is a distinction without a difference.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        > that is a distinction without a difference Yes, agreed, the entire idea of OTA updates to cars has a lot of bad consequences. No matter the license. So when we analyze the entire position of the FSF, all three cases listed above, I don't think you actually agree with them. FSF isn't against updating firmware on the fly, they just want certain things when it happens. And those things won't improve safety.
        jacquesm 1y ago
        Agreed. But: Stallman & the FSF are idealists, they are not in a position to argue for practical measures, by definition they have to take a relatively extremist position and dig in. If they didn't do that they would get nowhere. So I understand why they're doing it but I do not think their stance is overly practical or workable. But everybody will dilute that stance in their own particular way and so the net effect is potentially positive. If they would take a much milder stance then that positive effect would be diminished.
- tmtvl 1y ago
  Thank you for clearing that up, I clearly misread that completely.

by tmtvl 1y ago

Dylan16807 1y ago

That's not even close to what they said. They're saying approval of any who-knows-what code shouldn't be decided based on how it's loaded.

degamad 1y ago

I initially made the same misread that you did... The OP's point is, having the firmware permanently burnt-in on a ROM chip vs loaded as a binary blob via a driver doesn't change the "non-free"-ness of the firmware itself. So opting for hardware which has a "fully-open-source" driver, but runs a binary blob encoded into the hardware, doesn't make the system fully open. It's a take for a more Free system, not for accepting binary blobs. (Or I guess for acknowledging that if you're willing to allow binary blobs stored in hardware, then dynamically-loaded binary blobs doesn't change the "free"-ness.)

charcircuit 1y ago

To me: Open Source Firmware signed by OS > Firmware blob signed by device manufacturer > Firmware blob hardcoded by device Manufacturer The FSF treats hardcoded firmware blobs as "free" and updatable firmware blobs as nonfree despite there not being a big difference between them in practice. And practical differences like being able to fix security issues benefits users.

jacquesm 1y ago
> And practical differences like being able to fix security issues benefits users. More often than not these updates are not actually benefits to the users.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  Can you provide such an example? Because of bugs in the new version? A lot of the time old versions can still be loaded.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Just in the last couple of days: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45568700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45568700 There are by now thousands of examples of this, I wonder why you would ask for an example, this is about as uncontroversial as the sun going up tomorrow.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      The number of times that Linux distros, free software, has made my computer unusable, requiring me to manually fix it, is uncountable. Bugs from OS updates is still entirely possible even without updating firmware blobs.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        To a driver whose car just died on I 405 in heavy traffic that is a distinction without a difference.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        > that is a distinction without a difference Yes, agreed, the entire idea of OTA updates to cars has a lot of bad consequences. No matter the license. So when we analyze the entire position of the FSF, all three cases listed above, I don't think you actually agree with them. FSF isn't against updating firmware on the fly, they just want certain things when it happens. And those things won't improve safety.
        jacquesm 1y ago
        Agreed. But: Stallman & the FSF are idealists, they are not in a position to argue for practical measures, by definition they have to take a relatively extremist position and dig in. If they didn't do that they would get nowhere. So I understand why they're doing it but I do not think their stance is overly practical or workable. But everybody will dilute that stance in their own particular way and so the net effect is potentially positive. If they would take a much milder stance then that positive effect would be diminished.
tmtvl 1y ago
Thank you for clearing that up, I clearly misread that completely.