3 ms·
> "And even if it doesn't, because the most important parts of that non-free firmware are already sealed in memory on the card, it's no different from, let's ta
by ergethaxsd 11y ago
> "And even if it doesn't, because the most important parts of that non-free firmware are already sealed in memory on the card, it's no different from, let's take the easier example, any HDD out there."
On the contrary, the mere fact that it is a series of bits under user control - pure software for which there is a user-initiated loading mechanism - is precisely what makes it a the subject of peoples' libre software goals. Furthermore, it is because it is required that the user perform the initialization to use the main features that the user is constantly reminded about the proprietary dependency. Hard drives, for example, aren't a big focus for advocates because the drives generally don't forget they are hard drives between boots. It is true that they CAN be re-flashed, but it is not conventionally necessary to run, and that places them on a much more remote wish list. The main responsibility of the kernel in such cases is to prevent unauthorized firmware changes coming from userspace (ex, the NSA, over the network).
Boot-time firmware is qualitatively different from hardware that ships with working firmware, just as the latter is a different beast than ROM-based blobs.
- seba_dos1 11y agoYou still cannot be sure that WiFi blob isn't being reflashed over the air. Sure, it's harder to mess with reflashable firmware stored inside the device. However, it's only just like you said - a change on priority list, nothing else. Differentiating this in terms of freedom is a hypocrisy. Anyway. Kernel just provides you an interface to load such firmware into your device. When the firmware is freely redistributable, it's also included in the kernel source tree. Nothing more, nothing less. It's up to you to decide what to do with it - you can easily look up all the needed info and remove unwanted firmware files. For me there's no difference where it's stored. Closed firmware is closed firmware. We either have to accept it or not use PCs at all. In the meantime, we should rather focus on producing stuff that increasingly stops requiring it, instead of aimlessly fighting with kernel developers.
- ergethaxsd 11y ago> "When the firmware is freely redistributable, it's also included in the kernel source tree. Nothing more, nothing less. It's up to you to decide what to do with it - you can easily look up all the needed info and remove unwanted firmware files." Only, this process could be made more clear and more readily configurable (as I suggest, for example, a libre verbosity level, and noblob params). It is also not hypocrisy to fight battles in order of proximity - rather, it is strategy.
- seba_dos1 11y agoAs I said, under Linux it's just a matter of files in /lib/firmware, so you can easily implement this process however you would like to in userspace.