8 ms·

“Blob-free OpenBSD kernel needed”

90 points by lawl 11y ago

raverbashing 11y ago
I'm happy Theo dealt with this in a swift manner "You don't know jack shit about computers or electronics, that much is obvious." You might be sensitive to profanity (I am not), but it seems is a waste of time and energy to try to explain them the obvious. "Fact is, modern hardware simply "is what it is". Telling people that OpenBSD should not run on such hardware is a gigantic illusion." A good, realistic view, as opposed to that by Richard Stallman
- microcolonel 11y ago
  For what it's worth, Stallman thinks that firmware is an integral part of hardware, and doesn't seem to think of it in the same way as other software.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    IIRC he thinks that if the code is updateable, it should be free and it should be possible to replace it with code of ones own creation, if so desired. Completely non-updatable firmware in ROMs he is OK with being non-free.
    - comex 11y ago
      Except even firmware that comes with the hardware may be updatable somehow. I believe that firmware should be free, but refusing to ship blobs for this reason, while still attempting to be compatible with hardware that buries them under the covers (even when the blobs not being shipped are updates for the very same hardware - e.g. all major x86 CPUs), is burying one's head in the sand. Would be more principled to avoid hardware with proprietary firmware entirely, and advocate for both documented hardware and 'free' (i.e. open HDL etc.) hardware.
    - seba_dos1 11y ago
      That's the problem. I understand and respect Richard Stallman, but I can't agree with him on this subject. How can you know that firmware is "completely non-updateable"? You trust the vendor with that, there's no way to know for sure. What's more - recently (~1.5y ago) somebody figured out how to update firmware of microSD cards [1]. Thanks to him, if we want to apply FSF's point of view, microSD cards suddenly became unacceptable, non-free hardware, while before that blog post they were just fine. I'm involved in development of Neo900 [2] phone and already had fair share of discussions about freedom and openness of components with various people. I was a part of Openmoko community in the past and remember the TI Calypso modem used inside Neo1973 and Neo Freerunner. At first they were non-updateable (for consumer), so were acceptable to RMS. Some time later Openmoko Inc. got firmware fixes for pretty annoying bugs like SIM compatibility and started trying to figure out how to distribute the updates. They obtained a license to redistribute the updater tool, provided the instructions and the firmware image. Suddenly, Neo Freerunner became non-free hw. Then, some time later, partially thanks to Openmoko who provided the updater and instructions, OsmocomBB [3] was born (Harald Welte, who initiated OsmocomBB, also worked earlier in Openmoko). Suddenly Neo Freerunner became free again because there's a free firmware available for Calypso now. So my device I was carrying in my pocket, without any my intervention, went from free to non-free and to free back again. Fun! Also, as a user who cares about his freedom, I prefer to have a hardware with updateable or even entirely user provided non-free firmware than a black-box with the same non-free firmware inside, but not updateable. Of course over that I'll prefer a hw with open firmware, but in the case of the black box, there is even no hope that such a firmware will be provided in the future. And when at the same time you cannot be 100% sure that it really is non-updateable, then what's the advantage? I can't see any. In theory, I can agree with FSF and RMS. In practice, hardware doesn't really work that way. [1] http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3554 http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3554 [2] http://neo900.org/ http://neo900.org/ [3] http://bb.osmocom.org/ http://bb.osmocom.org/
      - raverbashing 11y ago
        Good point And today, chances are the firmware is updatable, even if it's not documented/supported.
    - swills 11y ago
      Given the existence of Intel x86 microprocessor microcode updates Intel x86 chips are right out.
- mc808 11y ago
  As someone who knows approximately jack shit about hardware and firmware issues, I appreciate the time he did waste explaining why he says the original poster was full of shit.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
It's about time a decent Theo de Raadt smackdown made it to the front page of HN. The scale of the condemnation directed toward Linus Torvalds is quite unfair when there's even more stern (and often correct) ranters than him.
- cypher543 11y ago
  I'm sure I wouldn't want to find myself at the other end of a Theo or Linus rant, but they sure are entertaining to read. Let's face it: a majority of people probably wish they could be so direct, especially when dealing with those who do effectively zero research before wasting everyone's time.
  - _delirium 11y ago
    I'm not sure the majority of people really wish that. There are plenty of places where you can rant on mailing lists, but it's not really a great way to spend time. Better to just calmly correct things that are worth correcting, ignore things not worth responding to, and move on to other things. Imo this style of rant isn't even entertaining once you've seen more than a few of them, because they basically follow a template. (Suggested AI class project: write a generator for Theo rants.)
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Suggested AI class project: write a generator for Theo rants Or just use theo(1) from 9front: https://plan9front.googlecode.com/hg/lib/theo https://plan9front.googlecode.com/hg/lib/theo
exDM69 11y ago
This email was a bit harsh. The first poster was a bit clueless but I'm sure it would have been possible to correct all the misconceptions without being rude. And I'm a bit surprised to see a high profile maintainer bother to reply to such a misguided post anyway. Perhaps being a maintainer of a significant infrastructure project like an OS kernel wears on a person and builds a bit of a short-fuse temper :)
- atmosx 11y ago
  That's just Theo being himself (and the OpenBSD community by extension) alienating yet another user. A reason IMHO that OpenBSD has never reached the level of notoriety of FreeBSD is Theo's childish behaviour. I can understand a 20-something insulting someone like that, but not Theo. ps. I didn't quite understand the Linus reference, but anyway.
  - pyvpx 11y ago
    the OpenBSD community gladly alienates those types of users. for "us" (I speak only for myself as a decade+ user and supporter), it's a qualitative game, not quantitative.
  - cypher543 11y ago
    Then please explain Linux's extreme level of notoriety despite Linus Torvalds' equally combative attitude.
    - atmosx 11y ago
      GPL + Linus rants are funnier to read.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Linus' rants are usually (if ever?) not targeted at newcomers, but at people who know him well (and vice-versa).
Gracana 11y ago
I've gone down the road of setting up a "blob-free" system, just to see what it might take, and it turned out (unsurprisingly) that it requires an enormous amount of sacrifice and effort. In the end I had a fragile old thinkpad x60 that ran an OS that got in my way. I lacked the time/effort/enthusiasm/means to commit to the cause, and now it's sitting in the corner collecting dust.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- grubles 11y ago
  To piggyback off of the above comment; There does exist a completely, as in 100%, free laptop for sale. "This is extremely rare in modern day computing."[0] [0]http://shop.gluglug.org.uk/ http://shop.gluglug.org.uk/
vfclists 11y ago
Is it just me or is there a conspiracy not to determinedly and aggressively seek alternatives to closed firmware in the so called open source world? Theo de Raadt's response makes me feel that some people who claim to be committed to open source are happy to violate the principles by giving hardware providers who are not committed to the principles an easy ride. I mean how many leading Linux/Open Source developers are ready to say 'we don't really like it, but if you want to use their hardware you will have to use their blobs' How hard is it for open source designers to design their own hardware and open the firmware for it? How difficult is it for hardware developers to release the specs for dated hardware to allow software improvements, and keep the firmware for new more performant hardware closed. The complainer has a point. It is disingenious for Linux to claim commitment to open source and neglect be virtually silent on the threat closed firmware blobs pose in this era of security issues.
- cypher543 11y ago
  The OpenBSD developers are concerned with working on OpenBSD, not leading some crusade against closed-source firmware. If it bothers you that much, then do as Theo says and don't use hardware that requires the blobs. If there are no open alternatives, why is that OpenBSD's problem?
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Not to mention the implication that the BSD and Linux communities don't care about software freedom is patently false. The two communities have very much been willing to fork or reimplement things from scratch because of licensing reasons all the time, even when the result ends up worse (e.g. Debian's cdrkit forked from cdrtools).
  - vfclists 11y ago
    It comes down to how important freedom is in software development, and whether freedom is an opportunity for hardware developers to piggy back on the efforts of enthusiasts and volunteer developers or involves something more fundamental than that.
- brynet 11y ago
nailer 11y ago
Parent poster means free as in speech. Theo chooses to take it as free as in beer. Love OpenBSD but Theo should have thought before getting angry.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure Theo understood what the parent poster meant.
  - nailer 11y ago
    I'm sure Theo understood too. But Theo didn't say 'I don't share your definition of free', he just said the parent was wrong and that it was free, which doesn't seem like a very adult way of conveying his disagreement.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  Theo completely understands. The problem is that a certain contingent of people clutch their pearls at the mere thought that they may be tempted from the way of Free Software by having a file that tells how to get a file that may offend their sensibilities. Theo treats his users like adults, who can make decisions for themselves, unlike certain other parties.
- Redoubts 11y ago
  Pretty sure there's a dig at the GPL in this very post: A few other firmwares are slightly less free. Meaning they are free for money, but they try to stipulate subtle rules we do not want to impact the freedom of our source tree with. ... OpenBSD has a tool built in which will download those, so that our base source tree remains full of freedom.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
frik 11y ago
If one knows what he is doing, it's possible to build such computers (PC, server). You can run PCs with just the generic drivers that come with Windows or ReactOS, and the same goes for Linux and *BSD. It's usually means a few sacrifice and more effort on your side. Some distributions (afaik Debian) come without any blobs by default, but can be added to apt list. And maybe one should learn the difference between GPL and BSD licensed software - both have their advantages and disadvantages.
- chubot 11y ago
  What about hard disk controllers and the like? I think that's what Theo is talking about here. I'm not an expert, but I won't be surprised if it's completely unrealistic.
  - frik 11y ago
    Theo wrote about software that flash hardware firmware (both provided as blob package), as I understood. Though flashing firmware is rather uncommon, but using a specific device driver for the operating system is a lot more common - and then I can understand that there is a wish for more open source device drivers in the Unix/BSD world. One usually rarely flashes the motherboard firmware (BIOS/EFI) or the graphic card firmware. A lot can go wrong, if the power goes down or the computer crash during a firmware flash-process, then the hardware is dead (except there is a backup-chip/logic like on more expensive motherboard e.g. Asus and Android devices). > hard disk controllers One usually never flash the HDD firmware. The same goes for the GSM/3G modem in your smartphone which is a separate real time OS on a separate ARM CPU. It's a blob and one buys it and cannot change it. It's also a black-box for Apple and Google and they cannot change them. There only less than a handful real completely open source smartphones with open source firmware ("open source hardware"), one example is OpenMoko (2011): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openmoko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openmoko The Linux/*BSD/Android world has a historical deficit in the availability of suitable drivers. Also the binary ABI isn't stable like on WindowsNT which means older drivers don't work with never kernels (e.g. Android upgrade means no camera). There are open source projects that could make a difference, if they get more donations like: ReactOS which aims to be binary compatible with Windows NT series hardware drivers. And NDISwrapper, that recreated a partial Windows NT kernel (using ReactOS code) inside a Linux kernel making it possible to execute modern Windows drivers in Linux. It consists of a NTOSKRNL API, a basic WDM controller, and a set of Windows call wrappers such as Wireless/NDIS/USB/PnP to Linux APIs.
squeeze 11y ago
Is Theo paid to be such an idiot?
- gonzo 11y ago
  Technically, yes.
listic 11y ago
On a more pragmatic note, how can a person who 'don't know jack shit' figure out what hardware on their system requires non-free blobs for operation? (either in BSD or Linux)
- peatmoss 11y ago
  On OpenBSD you can check the man page for fw_update IIRC. That utility is responsible for downloading firmware that couldn't be included in the kernel tree due to legal stipulations. I went down the road recently to try and build a binary firmware free desktop. I gave up. I did manage a no non-free firmware build, which runs OpenBSD spectacularly, but I couldn't get rid of all firmware blobs. It seems like open hardware is very hard to come by in this respect. Even swapping out your bios for coreboot is not possible for many (most?) systems--never mind all the other umpteen specialty computers running in your computer. A computer isn't one computer these days, and you will have a hard time taking a principled stand on all your software being free.
ergethaxsd 11y ago
While it is naive to imply closed blobs could ever fully or easily be replaced, it is also naive to blame the kernel user for having bought the hardware. For add-on cards, sure, but the line is not always that clear. Many are simply making do with the hardware they were gifted, or that is embedded, and so it's an all-or-nothing scenario. The closed blob in question may be getting loaded for something the user can't unplug or replace. Everything costs money, and not everyone can afford to throw away an imperfect choice and start again. I can typically blacklist things, but I need to know they are there to begin with so, to me, the problem boils down to the kernel, and other software, potentially doing things that I don't want. Since closed kernel blobs are clearly controversial, something as simple as highlighting their loading and making it as easy as possible to prevent it from happening on future boots may be enough. If the process is in place, it can be a simple lack of orientation - but Theo's response certainly doesn't help with that. As for running blob-free in general... It's not that hard, really. Often the only loss is fast 3D. Debian does a good job of separating free from non-free - and really, that is enough, since adding non-free items then becomes a conscious act (there can be other ways of making the distinction though).
- seba_dos1 11y ago
  See, even you are confused. If you give "loss of fast 3D" as an example of running blob-free, you didn't understand what Theo is talking about. 3D drivers run in user or kernel space, there is a clear policy about how to deal with stuff like that in basically any serious operating system that labels itself free and open. This mail was about firmwares. The little blobs your OS has to upload into memory of your WiFi card, Bluetooth controller, sensors, camera... and that's all it has to do with it. The rest happens on completely different CPUs - the ones that live inside your WiFi card, Bluetooth controller, sensors, camera... Even if your hardware seemingly doesn't require the blob to be loaded, it's most likely because it simply has a on board memory to store it. Some don't (obviously, that's cheaper way) and require user to load their firmware before they can operate. And nowadays, basically anything has such a firmware. Even microSD cards. From OS point of view, the only sensible approach to differentiate between free and non-free firmwares is to ask a question "is it freely redistributable?". If you go deeper than that, you enter the Open Hardware territory - which comes with its own set of principles and pandora boxes.
vog 11y ago
How does this relate to the anti-BLOB sentiment which they expressed very clearly in the OpenBSD 3.9 release song? http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39 http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
- brynet 11y ago
  "Blobs are vendor-compiled binary drivers without any source code."
  - vog 11y ago
    Ummm, yes, that's the definition of Blob. So what? Do you care to elaborate in how far does this answers the question?
- seba_dos1 11y ago
  Binary blobs running on your CPU under your OS is a completely different issue than binary blobs of firmware. If you have to provide the firmware blob to the device, it's most likely only because it was cheaper to not include any flash memory on it that could store it. Also, they can be very different in their nature. Firmwares can contains fairly complex operating systems that run on some microcontroller inside your hard drive, they can be hand-crafted for particular piece of hardware (so there's no source code) or they may only consist of some data structures needed to properly initialize the registers or other stuff like that.
  - wolfgke 11y ago
    > they can be hand-crafted for particular piece of hardware (so there's no source code) The property of being handcrafted for a particular piece of hardware does not imply that there is no source code.
sudioStudio64 11y ago
There are some great talks by Theo on different subsystems of OpenBSD on youtube. I would post a link but I'm on a mobile.

90 points by lawl 11y ago

I'm happy Theo dealt with this in a swift manner "You don't know jack shit about computers or electronics, that much is obvious." You might be sensitive to profanity (I am not), but it seems is a waste of time and energy to try to explain them the obvious. "Fact is, modern hardware simply "is what it is". Telling people that OpenBSD should not run on such hardware is a gigantic illusion." A good, realistic view, as opposed to that by Richard Stallman

microcolonel 11y ago
For what it's worth, Stallman thinks that firmware is an integral part of hardware, and doesn't seem to think of it in the same way as other software.
- ams6110 11y ago
  IIRC he thinks that if the code is updateable, it should be free and it should be possible to replace it with code of ones own creation, if so desired. Completely non-updatable firmware in ROMs he is OK with being non-free.
  - comex 11y ago
    Except even firmware that comes with the hardware may be updatable somehow. I believe that firmware should be free, but refusing to ship blobs for this reason, while still attempting to be compatible with hardware that buries them under the covers (even when the blobs not being shipped are updates for the very same hardware - e.g. all major x86 CPUs), is burying one's head in the sand. Would be more principled to avoid hardware with proprietary firmware entirely, and advocate for both documented hardware and 'free' (i.e. open HDL etc.) hardware.
  - seba_dos1 11y ago
    That's the problem. I understand and respect Richard Stallman, but I can't agree with him on this subject. How can you know that firmware is "completely non-updateable"? You trust the vendor with that, there's no way to know for sure. What's more - recently (~1.5y ago) somebody figured out how to update firmware of microSD cards [1]. Thanks to him, if we want to apply FSF's point of view, microSD cards suddenly became unacceptable, non-free hardware, while before that blog post they were just fine. I'm involved in development of Neo900 [2] phone and already had fair share of discussions about freedom and openness of components with various people. I was a part of Openmoko community in the past and remember the TI Calypso modem used inside Neo1973 and Neo Freerunner. At first they were non-updateable (for consumer), so were acceptable to RMS. Some time later Openmoko Inc. got firmware fixes for pretty annoying bugs like SIM compatibility and started trying to figure out how to distribute the updates. They obtained a license to redistribute the updater tool, provided the instructions and the firmware image. Suddenly, Neo Freerunner became non-free hw. Then, some time later, partially thanks to Openmoko who provided the updater and instructions, OsmocomBB [3] was born (Harald Welte, who initiated OsmocomBB, also worked earlier in Openmoko). Suddenly Neo Freerunner became free again because there's a free firmware available for Calypso now. So my device I was carrying in my pocket, without any my intervention, went from free to non-free and to free back again. Fun! Also, as a user who cares about his freedom, I prefer to have a hardware with updateable or even entirely user provided non-free firmware than a black-box with the same non-free firmware inside, but not updateable. Of course over that I'll prefer a hw with open firmware, but in the case of the black box, there is even no hope that such a firmware will be provided in the future. And when at the same time you cannot be 100% sure that it really is non-updateable, then what's the advantage? I can't see any. In theory, I can agree with FSF and RMS. In practice, hardware doesn't really work that way. [1] http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3554 http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3554 [2] http://neo900.org/ http://neo900.org/ [3] http://bb.osmocom.org/ http://bb.osmocom.org/
    - raverbashing 11y ago
      Good point And today, chances are the firmware is updatable, even if it's not documented/supported.
  - swills 11y ago
    Given the existence of Intel x86 microprocessor microcode updates Intel x86 chips are right out.
mc808 11y ago
As someone who knows approximately jack shit about hardware and firmware issues, I appreciate the time he did waste explaining why he says the original poster was full of shit.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

It's about time a decent Theo de Raadt smackdown made it to the front page of HN. The scale of the condemnation directed toward Linus Torvalds is quite unfair when there's even more stern (and often correct) ranters than him.

cypher543 11y ago
I'm sure I wouldn't want to find myself at the other end of a Theo or Linus rant, but they sure are entertaining to read. Let's face it: a majority of people probably wish they could be so direct, especially when dealing with those who do effectively zero research before wasting everyone's time.
- _delirium 11y ago
  I'm not sure the majority of people really wish that. There are plenty of places where you can rant on mailing lists, but it's not really a great way to spend time. Better to just calmly correct things that are worth correcting, ignore things not worth responding to, and move on to other things. Imo this style of rant isn't even entertaining once you've seen more than a few of them, because they basically follow a template. (Suggested AI class project: write a generator for Theo rants.)
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Suggested AI class project: write a generator for Theo rants Or just use theo(1) from 9front: https://plan9front.googlecode.com/hg/lib/theo https://plan9front.googlecode.com/hg/lib/theo

exDM69 11y ago

This email was a bit harsh. The first poster was a bit clueless but I'm sure it would have been possible to correct all the misconceptions without being rude. And I'm a bit surprised to see a high profile maintainer bother to reply to such a misguided post anyway. Perhaps being a maintainer of a significant infrastructure project like an OS kernel wears on a person and builds a bit of a short-fuse temper :)

atmosx 11y ago
That's just Theo being himself (and the OpenBSD community by extension) alienating yet another user. A reason IMHO that OpenBSD has never reached the level of notoriety of FreeBSD is Theo's childish behaviour. I can understand a 20-something insulting someone like that, but not Theo. ps. I didn't quite understand the Linus reference, but anyway.
- pyvpx 11y ago
  the OpenBSD community gladly alienates those types of users. for "us" (I speak only for myself as a decade+ user and supporter), it's a qualitative game, not quantitative.
- cypher543 11y ago
  Then please explain Linux's extreme level of notoriety despite Linus Torvalds' equally combative attitude.
  - atmosx 11y ago
    GPL + Linus rants are funnier to read.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Linus' rants are usually (if ever?) not targeted at newcomers, but at people who know him well (and vice-versa).

Gracana 11y ago

I've gone down the road of setting up a "blob-free" system, just to see what it might take, and it turned out (unsurprisingly) that it requires an enormous amount of sacrifice and effort. In the end I had a fragile old thinkpad x60 that ran an OS that got in my way. I lacked the time/effort/enthusiasm/means to commit to the cause, and now it's sitting in the corner collecting dust.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
grubles 11y ago
To piggyback off of the above comment; There does exist a completely, as in 100%, free laptop for sale. "This is extremely rare in modern day computing."[0] [0]http://shop.gluglug.org.uk/ http://shop.gluglug.org.uk/

vfclists 11y ago

Is it just me or is there a conspiracy not to determinedly and aggressively seek alternatives to closed firmware in the so called open source world? Theo de Raadt's response makes me feel that some people who claim to be committed to open source are happy to violate the principles by giving hardware providers who are not committed to the principles an easy ride. I mean how many leading Linux/Open Source developers are ready to say 'we don't really like it, but if you want to use their hardware you will have to use their blobs' How hard is it for open source designers to design their own hardware and open the firmware for it? How difficult is it for hardware developers to release the specs for dated hardware to allow software improvements, and keep the firmware for new more performant hardware closed. The complainer has a point. It is disingenious for Linux to claim commitment to open source and neglect be virtually silent on the threat closed firmware blobs pose in this era of security issues.

cypher543 11y ago
The OpenBSD developers are concerned with working on OpenBSD, not leading some crusade against closed-source firmware. If it bothers you that much, then do as Theo says and don't use hardware that requires the blobs. If there are no open alternatives, why is that OpenBSD's problem?
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Not to mention the implication that the BSD and Linux communities don't care about software freedom is patently false. The two communities have very much been willing to fork or reimplement things from scratch because of licensing reasons all the time, even when the result ends up worse (e.g. Debian's cdrkit forked from cdrtools).
- vfclists 11y ago
  It comes down to how important freedom is in software development, and whether freedom is an opportunity for hardware developers to piggy back on the efforts of enthusiasts and volunteer developers or involves something more fundamental than that.
brynet 11y ago

nailer 11y ago

Parent poster means free as in speech. Theo chooses to take it as free as in beer. Love OpenBSD but Theo should have thought before getting angry.

icebraining 11y ago
I'm pretty sure Theo understood what the parent poster meant.
- nailer 11y ago
  I'm sure Theo understood too. But Theo didn't say 'I don't share your definition of free', he just said the parent was wrong and that it was free, which doesn't seem like a very adult way of conveying his disagreement.
Sanddancer 11y ago
Theo completely understands. The problem is that a certain contingent of people clutch their pearls at the mere thought that they may be tempted from the way of Free Software by having a file that tells how to get a file that may offend their sensibilities. Theo treats his users like adults, who can make decisions for themselves, unlike certain other parties.
Redoubts 11y ago
Pretty sure there's a dig at the GPL in this very post: A few other firmwares are slightly less free. Meaning they are free for money, but they try to stipulate subtle rules we do not want to impact the freedom of our source tree with. ... OpenBSD has a tool built in which will download those, so that our base source tree remains full of freedom.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

frik 11y ago

If one knows what he is doing, it's possible to build such computers (PC, server). You can run PCs with just the generic drivers that come with Windows or ReactOS, and the same goes for Linux and *BSD. It's usually means a few sacrifice and more effort on your side. Some distributions (afaik Debian) come without any blobs by default, but can be added to apt list. And maybe one should learn the difference between GPL and BSD licensed software - both have their advantages and disadvantages.

chubot 11y ago
What about hard disk controllers and the like? I think that's what Theo is talking about here. I'm not an expert, but I won't be surprised if it's completely unrealistic.
- frik 11y ago
  Theo wrote about software that flash hardware firmware (both provided as blob package), as I understood. Though flashing firmware is rather uncommon, but using a specific device driver for the operating system is a lot more common - and then I can understand that there is a wish for more open source device drivers in the Unix/BSD world. One usually rarely flashes the motherboard firmware (BIOS/EFI) or the graphic card firmware. A lot can go wrong, if the power goes down or the computer crash during a firmware flash-process, then the hardware is dead (except there is a backup-chip/logic like on more expensive motherboard e.g. Asus and Android devices). > hard disk controllers One usually never flash the HDD firmware. The same goes for the GSM/3G modem in your smartphone which is a separate real time OS on a separate ARM CPU. It's a blob and one buys it and cannot change it. It's also a black-box for Apple and Google and they cannot change them. There only less than a handful real completely open source smartphones with open source firmware ("open source hardware"), one example is OpenMoko (2011): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openmoko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openmoko The Linux/*BSD/Android world has a historical deficit in the availability of suitable drivers. Also the binary ABI isn't stable like on WindowsNT which means older drivers don't work with never kernels (e.g. Android upgrade means no camera). There are open source projects that could make a difference, if they get more donations like: ReactOS which aims to be binary compatible with Windows NT series hardware drivers. And NDISwrapper, that recreated a partial Windows NT kernel (using ReactOS code) inside a Linux kernel making it possible to execute modern Windows drivers in Linux. It consists of a NTOSKRNL API, a basic WDM controller, and a set of Windows call wrappers such as Wireless/NDIS/USB/PnP to Linux APIs.

squeeze 11y ago

Is Theo paid to be such an idiot?

gonzo 11y ago
Technically, yes.

listic 11y ago

On a more pragmatic note, how can a person who 'don't know jack shit' figure out what hardware on their system requires non-free blobs for operation? (either in BSD or Linux)

peatmoss 11y ago
On OpenBSD you can check the man page for fw_update IIRC. That utility is responsible for downloading firmware that couldn't be included in the kernel tree due to legal stipulations. I went down the road recently to try and build a binary firmware free desktop. I gave up. I did manage a no non-free firmware build, which runs OpenBSD spectacularly, but I couldn't get rid of all firmware blobs. It seems like open hardware is very hard to come by in this respect. Even swapping out your bios for coreboot is not possible for many (most?) systems--never mind all the other umpteen specialty computers running in your computer. A computer isn't one computer these days, and you will have a hard time taking a principled stand on all your software being free.

ergethaxsd 11y ago

While it is naive to imply closed blobs could ever fully or easily be replaced, it is also naive to blame the kernel user for having bought the hardware. For add-on cards, sure, but the line is not always that clear. Many are simply making do with the hardware they were gifted, or that is embedded, and so it's an all-or-nothing scenario. The closed blob in question may be getting loaded for something the user can't unplug or replace. Everything costs money, and not everyone can afford to throw away an imperfect choice and start again. I can typically blacklist things, but I need to know they are there to begin with so, to me, the problem boils down to the kernel, and other software, potentially doing things that I don't want. Since closed kernel blobs are clearly controversial, something as simple as highlighting their loading and making it as easy as possible to prevent it from happening on future boots may be enough. If the process is in place, it can be a simple lack of orientation - but Theo's response certainly doesn't help with that. As for running blob-free in general... It's not that hard, really. Often the only loss is fast 3D. Debian does a good job of separating free from non-free - and really, that is enough, since adding non-free items then becomes a conscious act (there can be other ways of making the distinction though).

seba_dos1 11y ago
See, even you are confused. If you give "loss of fast 3D" as an example of running blob-free, you didn't understand what Theo is talking about. 3D drivers run in user or kernel space, there is a clear policy about how to deal with stuff like that in basically any serious operating system that labels itself free and open. This mail was about firmwares. The little blobs your OS has to upload into memory of your WiFi card, Bluetooth controller, sensors, camera... and that's all it has to do with it. The rest happens on completely different CPUs - the ones that live inside your WiFi card, Bluetooth controller, sensors, camera... Even if your hardware seemingly doesn't require the blob to be loaded, it's most likely because it simply has a on board memory to store it. Some don't (obviously, that's cheaper way) and require user to load their firmware before they can operate. And nowadays, basically anything has such a firmware. Even microSD cards. From OS point of view, the only sensible approach to differentiate between free and non-free firmwares is to ask a question "is it freely redistributable?". If you go deeper than that, you enter the Open Hardware territory - which comes with its own set of principles and pandora boxes.

vog 11y ago

How does this relate to the anti-BLOB sentiment which they expressed very clearly in the OpenBSD 3.9 release song? http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39 http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39

brynet 11y ago
"Blobs are vendor-compiled binary drivers without any source code."
- vog 11y ago
  Ummm, yes, that's the definition of Blob. So what? Do you care to elaborate in how far does this answers the question?
seba_dos1 11y ago
Binary blobs running on your CPU under your OS is a completely different issue than binary blobs of firmware. If you have to provide the firmware blob to the device, it's most likely only because it was cheaper to not include any flash memory on it that could store it. Also, they can be very different in their nature. Firmwares can contains fairly complex operating systems that run on some microcontroller inside your hard drive, they can be hand-crafted for particular piece of hardware (so there's no source code) or they may only consist of some data structures needed to properly initialize the registers or other stuff like that.
- wolfgke 11y ago
  > they can be hand-crafted for particular piece of hardware (so there's no source code) The property of being handcrafted for a particular piece of hardware does not imply that there is no source code.

sudioStudio64 11y ago

There are some great talks by Theo on different subsystems of OpenBSD on youtube. I would post a link but I'm on a mobile.