Adam Bolte <abo...@systemsaviour.com> writes: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:04:05AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > First you'd need to show that we're treating graphics firmware > > specially. I think the same criticisms are applied to vendors who > > act against freedom in network interface firmware, graphics > > firmware, radio firmware, etc. > > Like yourself, instead of purchasing computer hardware from perhaps a > local computer retailer, Ben has elected to import hardware from the > US on the basis that these Think Penguin machines are tested to be > "compatible" with free software - or at least that was my > understanding.
Close. They go to that effort in benefit of customer's software freedom, advertise it as a distinguishing feature, and say what devices are in the machine so we can verify exactly what free drivers will be used. That puts them a huge stretch ahead of most Australian notebook vendors in the advance of software freedom for customers. > However, even those machines provide the option of various SSDs, > HDD&SSD hybrids (all surely requiring non-free firmware), and even > non-free BIOSs. Which makes them no different from Australian vendors in that regard. On the other hand, I know of no Australian vendor that goes anywhere near close to the level of we-guarantee-it-works-with-only-free-software effort and proactive advertising on the basis of software freedom. If you can find one which goes *even further* than Think Penguin, ZaReason, Gerlach44, and so on, please let us know. Bonus, of course, if they're Australian. > Yet, these issues are rarely given any attention. Instead, most > efforts seem to be directed towards network and graphics firmware. I think that's a function of the long-standing intractability of nVidia and ATI on software freedom, and the rather recent advent of SSDs. I agree with you that they are both important issues for software freedom, and I don't treat either of them as less important than the other. In the case of my SSD, you may recall that I was the one who raised the problems of SSD non-free firmware updates and HDMI+HDCP, at the Free Software Melbourne meeting where I discussed this machine and my efforts in buying it. I was unaware of either problem when I was researching the machine, so I deny the charge you're bringing that I treated them as somehow lesser problems. > For the most part however, Intel doesn't issue microcode updates. AMD > has only enabled users to update microcode since 2009 (on GNU/Linux > systems at least). Out of sight, out of mind? No – as I said, if the vendor is not in a privileged position to deploy updates to the device's behaviour, then the customer's freedom is significantly more secure. That's good reson to treat it as less of a problem. > But do these graphic card firmwares really see proprietary updates > from vendors that modify the behaviour in some useful way? Or is this > something you are assuming just because a firmware needs to be loaded > at boot, and proprietary graphics card drivers (which include the > firmware) regularly get updates? Either the firmware update makes a significant change to the device's behaviour, in which case the customer's freedom to choose to load different firmware is important to their freedom; or it's not significant, in which case it's not important. Wherever you draw the line, that's where the change in behaviour becomes significant enough that the issue of the customer's freedom comes in. -- \ “If you can do no good, at least do no harm.” —_Slapstick_, | `\ Kurt Vonnegut | _o__) | Ben Finney
pgpsNTy2ZKfkl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
