On Friday 24 November 2006 22:09, luc wrote: > It seems that Lourens feared about a firmware inside the hardware, > something unremovable, unrewritable excepted if one can have the HDL > code, maybe. > Am I wrong?
Yes, that's not what I meant. If it's hardwired into the hardware, then it's hardware, not firmware, and it's clearly within the domain of the OHF. If it's loadable, the case is less clear-cut, because hardware and firmware are often codesigned. I'd say that the more generic the hardware is, the more the firmware is software and not part of the hardware. The problem with that is that it seems impossible to define where the borderline is. > Le vendredi 24 novembre 2006 à 12:47 +0000, Dieter a écrit : > > > I think it's hard to make a clear definition here. How is > > > firmware=20 different from software? > > > > Typically, firmware is loaded from some form of ROM, while software > > is loaded from some form of disk. > > > > But there are exceptions. On some larger machines, all the > > software that runs the console/monitor CPU is called firmware, even > > though most of it is loaded in from disk. > > > > The first use of floppies was for firmware. And I'm ignoring > > things like core memory, paper tape, punch cards, mag tape, drum, > > ... > > > > There isn't really any difference. That seems like a workable definition. > > Firmware can and often does have bugs, so the user needs to be able > > to improve and replace it just like software. But then it's not the job of the OHF to say that proprietary firmware is evil; the OHF should stick to saying that the hardware should be open, or at the very least open standards compliant so that Free firmware _can_ be written. Saying that that _should_ be done is the job of the OSI and the FSF. Lourens
pgp4TmjQ7RFtl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
