- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated Oct 6-7:18 am by sybok.
-
Posts
-
Brian Masinick
Michael Larabel writes via Phoronix:
Debian developers have been figuring out an updated stance to take on non-free firmware considering the increasing number of devices now having open-source Linux drivers but requiring closed-source firmware for any level of functionality. The voting on the non-free firmware matter has now concluded and the votes tallied… The debian votes option 5 as winning: “Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer.”Basically the Debian Installer media will now be allowed to include non-free firmware and to automatically load/use it where necessary while informing the user of it, etc. Considering the state of the hardware ecosystem these days, it’s reasonable and common sense since at least users will be able to easily make use of their graphics cards, network adapters, and more. Plus a number of modern CPU security mitigations also requiring the updated closed-source microcode. So all in, I am personally happy with this decision as it will allow for a more pleasant experience for Debian on modern systems and one akin to what is found with other Linux distributions.
The solution is described in full via the Debian Wiki.https://www.phoronix.com/news/Debian-Non-Free-Firmware-Result
--
Brian Masinick
rokytnji
Cool. Keeps me from doing
dmesg | grep firmwareSometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
Not all who Wander are Lost.
I'm not outa place. I'm from outer space.Linux Registered User # 475019
How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problems
sybok
I know some “purists” objected this is yet another step towards the end of (binary-blob) free software.
Personally, I hope that there is a choice in the installer such as:
A) the installer suggests to load the firmware after the HW was scanned
or
B) the installer asks at startup if the user wishes/agrees to load firmware whenever deemed necessary/appropriate.Brian Masinick
I can understand both sides of this matter. On one hand, we all want as much freely available software as possible. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the non-free software comes in the very crucial networking area, with perhaps a significant minority percentage also in high performance graphics systems.
People want these features and they have them in a lot of their systems, but if distributions don’t provide binary interfaces to these systems, their distributions don’t work with this equipment.
A reasonable compromise in this matter is what Debian has finally come up with, and I both agree and applaud their decision.
With that said, here is what I’d still like to see more of in both the networking and graphical hardware support areas:
1) When a technology is brand new and the company investing in it has a lot at stake, I think a 1-3 year window where only binary images are provided is reasonable; after that, I advocate that the source code to the no longer new technology be released in source code form, so that distributions (or the companies) can continue to provide the images, but also allow the true software freedom advocates to be able to build complete systems from source.
2) Free software consumers should support and recognize those companies that provide the most true “freedom”, that is, they provide both source code and binary images for their hardware components.
Those of us with REALLY OLD stuff have no reason at all to want anything to do with systems that don’t provide ALL of the necessary code and images. I think that’s a very reasonable compromise; it allows companies to keep their investments intact after designing and implementing new features, but it also accepts and supports software and hardware freedom. “Bending”, that is compromise, on both sides, allowing some latitude for companies to protect their investments for a reasonable period of time, but also for those same companies to readily support the free software industry and provide source code for all drivers for their “mature” products (those 3 years old or older).
What do you think?
Mind you, any company that provides software REGARDLESS of the age of their products gets a HUGE STAR of recognition and appreciation!
--
Brian Masinicksybok
From a practical point of view, I want to get my OS/HW (OS on top of a specific HW) up and running with minimal issues to solve.
Once accomplished, I sometimes get a bit more philosophical (though I have to admit, not willing to invest too much effort!), e.g. asking question such as: What evil, if any, lurks underneath?Opening the firmware after some time is a very good proposal.
The potential downsides are:
– Any support/safeguard/assurance beyond that point will most likely be restricted to proprietary firmware.
– Firmware innovations/improvements could be kept out of the open-sourced code to avoid them being copied by other companies.I stumbled across a nice lecture that takes it the firmware situation even one step further.
It concerns with hidden (from your end-user OS) HW and low level running firmware, sometimes only an euphemism for proprietary operational system(s), and a “holistic” approach as an alternative where your OS (re-)takes control of (all) the HW.
https://www.osfc.io/2022/talks/i-have-come-to-bury-the-bios-not-to-open-it-the-need-for-holistic-systems/
It also addresses (very briefly) why some companies may not tend to open their code.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
