On 08.11.21 19:38, Martin Roth wrote:
>
> Nov 7, 2021, 04:29 by nic...@gmx.de:
>
>> On 07.11.21 00:15, Martin Roth wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nov 6, 2021, 05:49 by nic...@gmx.de:
>>>
It also seems that you underestimate the individuals in the
community.
>>> I don't understand your statement
On 08.11.21 19:57, Patrick Georgi wrote:
> Am So., 7. Nov. 2021 um 12:29 Uhr schrieb Nico Huber :
>
>> There's also a general reluctance to expect to support a project with
>> free software that has shown that it doesn't take the GPL seriously.
>>
>
> General reluctance by whom? I just don't see
Dear Martin,
Am 05.11.21 um 18:15 schrieb Martin Roth:
Nov 4, 2021, 05:24 by pmen...@molgen.mpg.de:
On 20.10.21 14:24, Nico Huber wrote:
My proposal: How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed
when adding support for a new platform that requires any blobs?
My vague idea is as
Am So., 7. Nov. 2021 um 12:29 Uhr schrieb Nico Huber :
> There's also a general reluctance to expect to support a project with
> free software that has shown that it doesn't take the GPL seriously.
>
General reluctance by whom? I just don't see that, instead I see tons of
activity by a very
Nov 7, 2021, 04:29 by nic...@gmx.de:
> On 07.11.21 00:15, Martin Roth wrote:
>
>>
>> Nov 6, 2021, 05:49 by nic...@gmx.de:
>>
>>> It also seems that you underestimate the individuals in the
>>> community.
>>>
>> I don't understand your statement that patrick is underestimating the
>>
Hi Werner,
On 08.11.21 12:24, Zeh, Werner wrote:
> I fully can understand your point of view in this discussion. Unfortunately,
> we do live in a real world with real companies that are business-driven.
> With this sidenote in context the world changes dramatically in this regard.
>
> Your
I would feel sad.
Werner
> -Original Message-
> From: Nico Huber
> Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 1:56 PM
> To: coreboot@coreboot.org
> Subject: [coreboot] Re: Another year, another blob?
>
> Hi again,
>
> originally, I was hoping for a more comprehensive disc
Hi again,
originally, I was hoping for a more comprehensive discussion about
possible solutions for the friction created by late, undiscussed
additions of blob-support code. Alas, that didn't happen, and my own
proposal below was misunderstood. So I'll try now to provide some
rationale.
First of
On 07.11.21 00:15, Martin Roth wrote:
>
> Nov 6, 2021, 05:49 by nic...@gmx.de:
>
>> On 05.11.21 19:39, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote:
>>
>>> It [coreboot] would be dead: while there are still a few folks carefully
>>> maintaining
>>> i945 and GM45 in this reality, I'm not sure they would have
Nov 6, 2021, 05:49 by nic...@gmx.de:
> On 05.11.21 19:39, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote:
>
>> It [coreboot] would be dead: while there are still a few folks carefully
>> maintaining
>> i945 and GM45 in this reality, I'm not sure they would have done so in that
>> other reality where there
Nov 6, 2021, 05:49 by nic...@gmx.de:
> On 05.11.21 19:39, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote:
>
>> It [coreboot] would be dead: while there are still a few folks carefully
>> maintaining
>> i945 and GM45 in this reality, I'm not sure they would have done so in that
>> other reality where there
On 05.11.21 19:39, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote:
> Am Fr., 5. Nov. 2021 um 18:16 Uhr schrieb Martin Roth via coreboot <
> coreboot@coreboot.org>:
>
>> The current reality is that binary blobs are needed for almost every
>> platform in coreboot. I believe the coreboot leadership is united
On 05.11.21 19:10, ron minnich wrote:
> I'd like to get back to a rating system. There's a really simple
> measure that I've never seen improved upon, namely, for a given
> firmware image, what fraction of the bits in that image come from open
> source code?
>
> e.g., the KGPE-D16 would get a
On 05.11.21 18:15, Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
> Being more involved in the planning phase would be great, and obviously there
> are companies contributing to coreboot who ARE involved in these discussions.
> Expecting companies to discuss their plans for future chips in the open
> probably
Am Fr., 5. Nov. 2021 um 19:11 Uhr schrieb ron minnich :
> e.g., the KGPE-D16 would get a 100%
>
except for the VGABIOS.
> Marketing types are sensitive to numbers like this: we could
> prominently display these numbers on coreboot.org
>
They're also pretty sensitive about any kind of mistake
Am Fr., 5. Nov. 2021 um 18:16 Uhr schrieb Martin Roth via coreboot <
coreboot@coreboot.org>:
> The current reality is that binary blobs are needed for almost every
> platform in coreboot. I believe the coreboot leadership is united behind
> the unfortunate reality that allowing these blobs is a
I'd like to get back to a rating system. There's a really simple
measure that I've never seen improved upon, namely, for a given
firmware image, what fraction of the bits in that image come from open
source code?
e.g., the KGPE-D16 would get a 100%, and a typical laptop would get 0%.
This is a
Nov 4, 2021, 05:24 by pmen...@molgen.mpg.de:
> On 20.10.21 14:24, Nico Huber wrote:
>
>> My proposal:
>> How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
>> for a new platform that requires any blobs? My vague idea is as follows:
>> Before the very first commit for such a
Dear Nico,
On 20.10.21 14:24, Nico Huber wrote:
a recent yet-another-blob occurrence reminded me that I wanted to
write about the matter for a long time.
Every few months, it seems (if not, more often), a new blob is
introduced to coreboot. Alas, this is often hidden to the last
minute,
On 20.10.21 20:22, Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
> Accidentally responded off the mailing list initally. :-/
>
>
> Oct 20, 2021, 08:07 by matt.devill...@gmail.com:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:53 AM Andy Pont wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nico wrote...
> How about we set up some guidelines how to
Accidentally responded off the mailing list initally. :-/
Oct 20, 2021, 08:07 by matt.devill...@gmail.com:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:53 AM Andy Pont wrote:
>
>>
>> Nico wrote...
>> >> How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
>> >> for a new platform that
On 20.10.21 16:07, Matt DeVillier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:53 AM Andy Pont wrote:
>>
>> Nico wrote...
How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
for a new platform that requires any blobs? My vague idea is as follows:
Before the very first
Hi Andy,
On 20.10.21 15:53, Andy Pont wrote:
> Nico wrote...
>>> How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
>>> for a new platform that requires any blobs? My vague idea is as
>>> follows:
>>> Before the very first commit for such a new platform can be merged, a
>>>
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:53 AM Andy Pont wrote:
>
> Nico wrote...
> >> How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
> >> for a new platform that requires any blobs? My vague idea is as follows:
> >> Before the very first commit for such a new platform can be merged,
Nico wrote...
How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
for a new platform that requires any blobs? My vague idea is as follows:
Before the very first commit for such a new platform can be merged, a
set of predefined, blob related questions (to be discussed)
> How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
> for a new platform that requires any blobs? My vague idea is as follows:
> Before the very first commit for such a new platform can be merged, a
> set of predefined, blob related questions (to be discussed) should be
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
