Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Adam Bolte wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Matt, > > On 30/06/13 17:35, Matt Giuca wrote: > > Thanks for a clear and detailed summary of your Ouya experiences. > > No worries. Right back at you. > > > > It sucks that there are journalists going around saying that the > > Ouya is less restrictive than it actually is (for certain, > > apparently randomly selected, customers). > > Yes. I have noticed this too. When I first turned on the device, there > was a large firmware update that needed to be applied, so possibly in > doing that it has changed the initial sign-up behavior for those of us > who only very recently received our Ouya devices. > > > > Fortunately, instead of a credit card, you also have the option of > >> using a pre-paid credit code. These were apparently available > >> during pre-order, and can be brought from various places online. > >> eg. > >> > >> http://www.game.co.uk/en/ouya-10-credit-232744 > >> > >> So while some available credit must be verified (which I'm not > >> defending - this aspect of the Ouya console sucks), it seems that > >> you don't have to hand over your credit card to Ouya to store > >> indefinitely if you don't want to. > > > > But then I have to pay them more money up front (which I don't feel > > they deserve right now) and also wait for a physical card to be > > shipped internationally. > > You're right. Hopefully cdkey-hut.com or some such will add Ouya > support soon, so we can pay anonymously and without waiting on > postage. Still would have to pay something up-front though. > > > > I'm happier to get a general-purpose debit card. At least then I > > can use the credit elsewhere, not just on Ouya. There are cards > > that do not require opening a full bank account from Australia Post > > and Woolworths. I'm trying to decide which one is better. They both > > have some nasty drawbacks (like credit expiration and cancellation > > fees). > > Interesting. I haven't looked into them, so know nothing about them. > > > > I would definitely configure a PIN just in case I don't find myself > > mashing the "shoot" button and a dialog pops up and I accidentally > > mash the "Buy for $100" button. > > I'm pretty sure that there isn't any game on Ouya at that price. From > game.co.uk, "Every OUYA game is free to try, but unlocking the game, > additional features or extra play time can cost between £1 to £20". > I've been quite impressed with how cheap the games are priced at so > far. Your point still stands though. > Well, this post I linked to: http://www.reddit.com/r/ouya/comments/1fygl2/warning_3_yr_old_son_just_cost_me_300_dont_let_it/ says that there was a game (EMUya) that charged $100 on a single payment. (For unlocking "cheat mode" no less, what a ludicrous amount of money. Any in-app purchase that expensive can only be designed to trick people or their kids into buying it.) > > > >> And that's Ouya's thing - every game must provide a no-cost > >> playable component. If purchases could not happen in game, I > >> expect commercial game developers might have good reason to be > >> scared of people just playing demos and not making purchases. So > >> it is clear to me that this mandatory credit was deliberately > >> enforced as a marketing factor above all else. > >> > > > > Yeah. I get that, and it's a good "hook" for them, but I still want > > to be given the choice, as a consumer. Don't give me this bullshit > > about it being "more convenient" for me when you're forcing me to > > do it. Me having to spend a week researching debit cards is > > certainly not "more convenient". > > Yep. "We're forcing you to do this because we know what's best, it's > more convenient for everyone, and what's best for everyone is best for > you too" is a shockingly unconvincing response by the Ouya crew. > > On second thoughts, perhaps the Ouya crew are correct - only they mean > that it's more convenient *for them* to make us do this. > > > > In the context of a game console, I'm pretty happy with the Ouya. > >> There have been a few surprises (such as the built-in track-pad > >> on the controller which I only discovered by accident), and of > >> course "Make" being right on the main menu where you can run your > >> software builds from. Already I have more games on my Ouya then I > >> have for my Wii-U. > >> > >> - From a free software perspective however, it's been somewhat of > >> a letdown. Apparently, the boot-loader is locked. > > > > > > Really? That's not what their Kickstarter page says: "For hackers: > > root it. Go ahead. Your warranty is safe. Even the hardware is > > hackable." > > Hmm.. perhaps that link is wrong. I found a forum thread which > contradicts the previous link: > > http://forums.ouya.tv/discussion/1380/recovery-mode/ > > "The issue is not that the bootloader is locked... The issue is that > there is no way to tell the bootloader to interrupt normal boot and > enter fastboot mode. Device
Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Matt, On 30/06/13 17:35, Matt Giuca wrote: > Thanks for a clear and detailed summary of your Ouya experiences. No worries. Right back at you. > It sucks that there are journalists going around saying that the > Ouya is less restrictive than it actually is (for certain, > apparently randomly selected, customers). Yes. I have noticed this too. When I first turned on the device, there was a large firmware update that needed to be applied, so possibly in doing that it has changed the initial sign-up behavior for those of us who only very recently received our Ouya devices. > Fortunately, instead of a credit card, you also have the option of >> using a pre-paid credit code. These were apparently available >> during pre-order, and can be brought from various places online. >> eg. >> >> http://www.game.co.uk/en/ouya-10-credit-232744 >> >> So while some available credit must be verified (which I'm not >> defending - this aspect of the Ouya console sucks), it seems that >> you don't have to hand over your credit card to Ouya to store >> indefinitely if you don't want to. > > But then I have to pay them more money up front (which I don't feel > they deserve right now) and also wait for a physical card to be > shipped internationally. You're right. Hopefully cdkey-hut.com or some such will add Ouya support soon, so we can pay anonymously and without waiting on postage. Still would have to pay something up-front though. > I'm happier to get a general-purpose debit card. At least then I > can use the credit elsewhere, not just on Ouya. There are cards > that do not require opening a full bank account from Australia Post > and Woolworths. I'm trying to decide which one is better. They both > have some nasty drawbacks (like credit expiration and cancellation > fees). Interesting. I haven't looked into them, so know nothing about them. > I would definitely configure a PIN just in case I don't find myself > mashing the "shoot" button and a dialog pops up and I accidentally > mash the "Buy for $100" button. I'm pretty sure that there isn't any game on Ouya at that price. From game.co.uk, "Every OUYA game is free to try, but unlocking the game, additional features or extra play time can cost between £1 to £20". I've been quite impressed with how cheap the games are priced at so far. Your point still stands though. >> And that's Ouya's thing - every game must provide a no-cost >> playable component. If purchases could not happen in game, I >> expect commercial game developers might have good reason to be >> scared of people just playing demos and not making purchases. So >> it is clear to me that this mandatory credit was deliberately >> enforced as a marketing factor above all else. >> > > Yeah. I get that, and it's a good "hook" for them, but I still want > to be given the choice, as a consumer. Don't give me this bullshit > about it being "more convenient" for me when you're forcing me to > do it. Me having to spend a week researching debit cards is > certainly not "more convenient". Yep. "We're forcing you to do this because we know what's best, it's more convenient for everyone, and what's best for everyone is best for you too" is a shockingly unconvincing response by the Ouya crew. On second thoughts, perhaps the Ouya crew are correct - only they mean that it's more convenient *for them* to make us do this. > In the context of a game console, I'm pretty happy with the Ouya. >> There have been a few surprises (such as the built-in track-pad >> on the controller which I only discovered by accident), and of >> course "Make" being right on the main menu where you can run your >> software builds from. Already I have more games on my Ouya then I >> have for my Wii-U. >> >> - From a free software perspective however, it's been somewhat of >> a letdown. Apparently, the boot-loader is locked. > > > Really? That's not what their Kickstarter page says: "For hackers: > root it. Go ahead. Your warranty is safe. Even the hardware is > hackable." Hmm.. perhaps that link is wrong. I found a forum thread which contradicts the previous link: http://forums.ouya.tv/discussion/1380/recovery-mode/ "The issue is not that the bootloader is locked... The issue is that there is no way to tell the bootloader to interrupt normal boot and enter fastboot mode. Devices usually have a hardware button combination to do this." > That's even more troubling if it isn't even possible to change the > operating system if necessary. So it looks like it's possible - it's just not easy, and not easy to recover from when things go bad. - -Adam -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRz/BkAAoJEE2M/Tk0piBIN0sIAICJRbQ+X37TcRvp/yf/C+Rn aWT9rBXXlGn5h9vN+N6uEisLFnokJ8eb49wpJkGg9hNCNMGW1IP523MW2FTLRRWt QTJqTh0jkHpSi2USRkL0R6xuKTwbSWqjeACi0we3yDtiZTPb3AySOW0ekM/snSLE Fod7ixNVQRf
Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
Hi Adam, Thanks for a clear and detailed summary of your Ouya experiences. (I still haven't gotten into the main menu on mine, while I'm having an email conversation with support, and considering whether to buy a debit card and which one.) For what it's worth, I got an email back from support, but it didn't really tell me anything; just that the credit card was a requirement. I want to know why mine doesn't let me get to the main menu whereas others (including journalists) have reported being able to download games without a CC. It sucks that there are journalists going around saying that the Ouya is less restrictive than it actually is (for certain, apparently randomly selected, customers). On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Adam Bolte wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > This controversy was uncovered some months back, so I was expecting to > need a credit card. Some information here: > > > https://support.ouya.tv/entries/23463832-Why-do-you-HAVE-to-put-in-credit-debit-card-information-even-for-free-apps-games- > > - From the link, Ouya support stated "Other than being able to download > games via the Discover section, absolutely no other functionality will > require that you provide payment information. Period." We know this > isn't true - you need to enter this information before you can even > log in. Apparently you can load your own .apk files onto the device to > run, but you wouldn't even be able to get that far without having some > credit verified up front (unless hacking the device, of course). > Very interesting. I have read that page but I didn't catch that quote that explicitly states that only the Discover section requires a credit card. Fortunately, instead of a credit card, you also have the option of > using a pre-paid credit code. These were apparently available during > pre-order, and can be brought from various places online. eg. > > http://www.game.co.uk/en/ouya-10-credit-232744 > > So while some available credit must be verified (which I'm not > defending - this aspect of the Ouya console sucks), it seems that you > don't have to hand over your credit card to Ouya to store indefinitely > if you don't want to. > But then I have to pay them more money up front (which I don't feel they deserve right now) and also wait for a physical card to be shipped internationally. I'm happier to get a general-purpose debit card. At least then I can use the credit elsewhere, not just on Ouya. There are cards that do not require opening a full bank account from Australia Post and Woolworths. I'm trying to decide which one is better. They both have some nasty drawbacks (like credit expiration and cancellation fees). To address your concern of accidentally being charged for games by > button-mashing, the one game I purchased to date gave the impression > that the Ouya payment API forces certain GUI changes, based on the way > the UI suddenly appeared - it looked very Android-ish, which was a > stark contrast to everything else in-game. In any case, you can also > configure (under the Parental menu) that you must enter a PIN first to > make any purchase. > That's good to hear. I would definitely configure a PIN just in case I don't find myself mashing the "shoot" button and a dialog pops up and I accidentally mash the "Buy for $100" button. A boss had just appeared after maybe 30 or so minutes of game-play. > Then a message appeared asking me to purchase the game if I wanted to > continue. Clicking "Purchase"(?) (this is from memory of course), I > was told the game would cost $4.99, and then I had to click another > button, "Confirm" IIRC, and then click one more time to dispel the > message that I had successfully paid. Then i was back in the game. > > Having witnessed this myself, I can confirm that it was all very > smooth and nicely handled. I can understand why they want a credit > card up front (and it probably doesn't hurt that Ouya can say to > potential developers "we have X number of people with an Ouya console > and credit on file ready to make purchases"). > > Possibly if people had to quit the game, go to Discover, purchase the > game, possibly wait for something to download, and then load the game > up again and get back to my last checkpoint, some people wouldn't > bother. They might go to the store and say "hey, there's 200 other > demos here that I haven't tried out" and instead of paying for the > game will just go play something else. > > And that's Ouya's thing - every game must provide a no-cost playable > component. If purchases could not happen in game, I expect commercial > game developers might have good reason to be scared of people just > playing demos and not making purchases. So it is clear to me that this > mandatory credit was deliberately enforced as a marketing factor above > all else. > Yeah. I get that, and it's a good "hook" for them, but I still want to be given the choice, as a consumer. Don't give me this bullshit about it being "m
Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 28/06/13 23:37, Matt Giuca wrote: > Did you guys end up chipping in for one? Not as a group. > Did anybody get theirs? Yes. Mine arrived on Thursday. The cardboard box was damp and looked like someone had used it as a football... but amazingly the contents inside were unarmed. > I got mine this week, and I am severely disappointed from both a > freedom and security standpoint that it requires me to enter a > credit card before I can even turn it on. This controversy was uncovered some months back, so I was expecting to need a credit card. Some information here: https://support.ouya.tv/entries/23463832-Why-do-you-HAVE-to-put-in-credit-debit-card-information-even-for-free-apps-games- - From the link, Ouya support stated "Other than being able to download games via the Discover section, absolutely no other functionality will require that you provide payment information. Period." We know this isn't true - you need to enter this information before you can even log in. Apparently you can load your own .apk files onto the device to run, but you wouldn't even be able to get that far without having some credit verified up front (unless hacking the device, of course). Fortunately, instead of a credit card, you also have the option of using a pre-paid credit code. These were apparently available during pre-order, and can be brought from various places online. eg. http://www.game.co.uk/en/ouya-10-credit-232744 So while some available credit must be verified (which I'm not defending - this aspect of the Ouya console sucks), it seems that you don't have to hand over your credit card to Ouya to store indefinitely if you don't want to. I have a spare debit card which I never have any money in, and I leave at home just for emergencies. eg. If my wallet gets stolen, I can cancel my cards and transfer money to my spare debit card account online while waiting for a replacement. This is the card I used when signing up for an Ouya account. When I made a game purchase (more on this below), I transfered money to the account associated with the card first. That way, I don't have to trust Ouya, and transferring money is still probably easier than dealing with buying pre-paid credit. > https://plus.google.com/108688191891412975833/posts/baejsGtfX3C To address your concern of accidentally being charged for games by button-mashing, the one game I purchased to date gave the impression that the Ouya payment API forces certain GUI changes, based on the way the UI suddenly appeared - it looked very Android-ish, which was a stark contrast to everything else in-game. In any case, you can also configure (under the Parental menu) that you must enter a PIN first to make any purchase. A boss had just appeared after maybe 30 or so minutes of game-play. Then a message appeared asking me to purchase the game if I wanted to continue. Clicking "Purchase"(?) (this is from memory of course), I was told the game would cost $4.99, and then I had to click another button, "Confirm" IIRC, and then click one more time to dispel the message that I had successfully paid. Then i was back in the game. Having witnessed this myself, I can confirm that it was all very smooth and nicely handled. I can understand why they want a credit card up front (and it probably doesn't hurt that Ouya can say to potential developers "we have X number of people with an Ouya console and credit on file ready to make purchases"). Possibly if people had to quit the game, go to Discover, purchase the game, possibly wait for something to download, and then load the game up again and get back to my last checkpoint, some people wouldn't bother. They might go to the store and say "hey, there's 200 other demos here that I haven't tried out" and instead of paying for the game will just go play something else. And that's Ouya's thing - every game must provide a no-cost playable component. If purchases could not happen in game, I expect commercial game developers might have good reason to be scared of people just playing demos and not making purchases. So it is clear to me that this mandatory credit was deliberately enforced as a marketing factor above all else. In the context of a game console, I'm pretty happy with the Ouya. There have been a few surprises (such as the built-in track-pad on the controller which I only discovered by accident), and of course "Make" being right on the main menu where you can run your software builds from. Already I have more games on my Ouya then I have for my Wii-U. - From a free software perspective however, it's been somewhat of a letdown. Apparently, the boot-loader is locked. There was no reference on the device or in the printed documentation (that I noticed, anyway) to the source code, or the GPL etc. although everything does appear to have been dumped on GitHub. They may have released more code than any other major game console to date, but it's not as much as I had hoped for. The
Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
Resurrecting this old thread, now that OUYA is out... Did you guys end up chipping in for one? Did anybody get theirs? I got mine this week, and I am severely disappointed from both a freedom and security standpoint that it requires me to enter a credit card before I can even turn it on. https://plus.google.com/108688191891412975833/posts/baejsGtfX3C To be fair, it *is* hackable hardware, as promised. Apparently you can root it, flash the firmware, etc. But I'm not so interested in this (because after all, it's just a small ARM computer if you're just going to wipe the software). I'm really disappointed that the console that is supposed to give me full control over my system is making such stupid demands up front. This doesn't bode well. Oh well, it was reasonably cheap. On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Adam Bolte wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:04:31AM +1000, Ben Sturmfels wrote: > > Adam Bolte writes: > > > > > If my above assumptions are correct, why treat graphics driver firmware > > > specially? I'm certainly not saying it's wrong to demand free firmware, > > > however I'm curious why some firmware is treated differently. Is it > because > > > one lives in your filesystem on your HDD, but the other is stored in > an EEPROM > > > (and if so, why does this matter)? > > > > Yes, for me, that's it exactly. I distinguish between devices that > > require non-free firmware to be uploaded each time I turn them on and > > devices that have firmware inside but don't require me to touch it. > > Thanks for the clarification. I respect your opinion. > > Personally, I feel that if the firmware is uploaded from the file system > via > free software, as opposed to being uploaded by a closed system external to > the > kernel which I don't control, I'd rather have it on my file system. > > > ...and devices that have firmware inside but don't require me to touch > it. > If the firmware is freely distributable under a "do whatever you want"-type > license (but still proprietary), you don't actually have to touch anything > yourself. It's generally no different to firmware on EEPROM from a user > perspective, if the drivers are coded correctly. > > Actually, maybe *you* do have to touch something since you run Trisquel, > but > for the vast majority of GNU/Linux users this will go unnoticed. (Note: I'm > not trying to have a go at you and want to be absolutely clear about that, > but > it must be noted that proprietary firmware is a much bigger deal for you > than most because you chose to make it so - regardless of it being right or > wrong. I had forgotten this when this thread all began). > > > > It's important to me to draw clear lines between the free and the > > non-free software. I don't want my operating system project to have to > > distribute non-free software, because fully-free operating systems are > > so much more powerful as an advocacy tool. That's why I use Trisquel; > > because it makes no exceptions. > > Trisquel might give some people the illusion that they can run their > computer > with 100% free software at least, and certainly they are doing their best > to > make sure that you are running as little as absolutely possible (even if it > means non-functioning hardware). When hardware does function however, I do > not > want it to be just because the proprietary bits have been swept under the > rug. > > > > Beyond that, I also think it's important that we have free firmware for > > devices that come with it embedded such as motherboards and hard > > drives). These are a smaller violation of freedom though, and cleanly > > segmented from operating system distributions. Right now I prefer > > instead to focus on the bigger problems for freedom such as Skype and > > Adobe Flash. > > Interesting. As per information pointed to me by Chris, it appears that > microcode is loaded into the CPU via the BIOS upon boot. This microcode > (along > with the BIOS generally) is proprietary. What you appear to be saying is > that > if AMD's graphics firmware was also loaded by the BIOS instead (where you > would actually have less control over how and what gets loaded), it's not > so > bad. > > My view on all this is that I don't care about boundaries so much. If there > are tiny bits of proprietary software on my file-system required to have a > functioning computer, that's fine - *provided* the end result is an overall > larger reduction in proprietary software over what it would be by > segregating > it to different storage systems (such as EEPROMs) that can be more > difficult > to access. > > As a small side-benefit, I would expect having separate firmware files > loaded > by the kernel would make reverse engineering efforts slightly easier, as > there > would be no requirement to figure out how to dump EEPROMs, and you can > directly compare it against all the other firmware files for similar > hardware > - likely all distributed within the same package. > > Of course, I'd prefer to not have any propri
Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:04:31AM +1000, Ben Sturmfels wrote: > Adam Bolte writes: > > > If my above assumptions are correct, why treat graphics driver firmware > > specially? I'm certainly not saying it's wrong to demand free firmware, > > however I'm curious why some firmware is treated differently. Is it because > > one lives in your filesystem on your HDD, but the other is stored in an > > EEPROM > > (and if so, why does this matter)? > > Yes, for me, that's it exactly. I distinguish between devices that > require non-free firmware to be uploaded each time I turn them on and > devices that have firmware inside but don't require me to touch it. Thanks for the clarification. I respect your opinion. Personally, I feel that if the firmware is uploaded from the file system via free software, as opposed to being uploaded by a closed system external to the kernel which I don't control, I'd rather have it on my file system. > ...and devices that have firmware inside but don't require me to touch it. If the firmware is freely distributable under a "do whatever you want"-type license (but still proprietary), you don't actually have to touch anything yourself. It's generally no different to firmware on EEPROM from a user perspective, if the drivers are coded correctly. Actually, maybe *you* do have to touch something since you run Trisquel, but for the vast majority of GNU/Linux users this will go unnoticed. (Note: I'm not trying to have a go at you and want to be absolutely clear about that, but it must be noted that proprietary firmware is a much bigger deal for you than most because you chose to make it so - regardless of it being right or wrong. I had forgotten this when this thread all began). > It's important to me to draw clear lines between the free and the > non-free software. I don't want my operating system project to have to > distribute non-free software, because fully-free operating systems are > so much more powerful as an advocacy tool. That's why I use Trisquel; > because it makes no exceptions. Trisquel might give some people the illusion that they can run their computer with 100% free software at least, and certainly they are doing their best to make sure that you are running as little as absolutely possible (even if it means non-functioning hardware). When hardware does function however, I do not want it to be just because the proprietary bits have been swept under the rug. > Beyond that, I also think it's important that we have free firmware for > devices that come with it embedded such as motherboards and hard > drives). These are a smaller violation of freedom though, and cleanly > segmented from operating system distributions. Right now I prefer > instead to focus on the bigger problems for freedom such as Skype and > Adobe Flash. Interesting. As per information pointed to me by Chris, it appears that microcode is loaded into the CPU via the BIOS upon boot. This microcode (along with the BIOS generally) is proprietary. What you appear to be saying is that if AMD's graphics firmware was also loaded by the BIOS instead (where you would actually have less control over how and what gets loaded), it's not so bad. My view on all this is that I don't care about boundaries so much. If there are tiny bits of proprietary software on my file-system required to have a functioning computer, that's fine - *provided* the end result is an overall larger reduction in proprietary software over what it would be by segregating it to different storage systems (such as EEPROMs) that can be more difficult to access. As a small side-benefit, I would expect having separate firmware files loaded by the kernel would make reverse engineering efforts slightly easier, as there would be no requirement to figure out how to dump EEPROMs, and you can directly compare it against all the other firmware files for similar hardware - likely all distributed within the same package. Of course, I'd prefer to not have any proprietary firmwares, microcodes, etc. stored anywhere on my systems... I'm just drawing a different line for myself. Cheers, Adam signature.asc Description: Digital 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
Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
Adam Bolte writes: > If my above assumptions are correct, why treat graphics driver firmware > specially? I'm certainly not saying it's wrong to demand free firmware, > however I'm curious why some firmware is treated differently. Is it because > one lives in your filesystem on your HDD, but the other is stored in an EEPROM > (and if so, why does this matter)? Yes, for me, that's it exactly. I distinguish between devices that require non-free firmware to be uploaded each time I turn them on and devices that have firmware inside but don't require me to touch it. It's important to me to draw clear lines between the free and the non-free software. I don't want my operating system project to have to distribute non-free software, because fully-free operating systems are so much more powerful as an advocacy tool. That's why I use Trisquel; because it makes no exceptions. Beyond that, I also think it's important that we have free firmware for devices that come with it embedded such as motherboards and hard drives). These are a smaller violation of freedom though, and cleanly segmented from operating system distributions. Right now I prefer instead to focus on the bigger problems for freedom such as Skype and Adobe Flash. Ben pgpmh1KYFu9bT.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
Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 04:32:36PM +1000, Ben Sturmfels wrote: > Adam Bolte writes: > > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 07:50:00PM +1000, Ben Sturmfels wrote: > >> I see they've already raised $8M in pre-sales though, so perhaps > >> there are other free software organisations that would benefit more > >> from a donation right now. I'm thinking instead of buying a video > >> card from Think Penguin [3]. > >> > >> [3] > >> https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/geforce-9500gt-1gb-pci-express-20-video-card-gnulinux > > > > I just noticed... it's an Nvidia card you are talking about. This gives me > > mixed feelings. Sure supporting free software drivers and stores that find > > such hardware is great, but supporting Nvidia? > > AMD makes cards that have excellent free software drivers, and (unlike > > Nvidia) > > they release the specs... however most modern AMD cards rely on non-free > > firmware - firmware that isn't built into the device's ROM, but instead > > needs > > to be loaded by the driver during initialisation. > > > > Even so, it seems to me that AMD is doing far better at helping the free > > software driver communities than Nvidia ever has. > Choosing an AMD card means I'm giving some profits to AMD, who offer > dramatically better support for free software. On the other hand though, > I'd be required to use proprietary firmware. True. Even basic embedded proprietary firmware that users are not expected to interact with directly can still be a problem, as most people who have purchased a SSD recently would be able to tell you. http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4870/lsi_sandforce_5_series_ssd_firmware_trim_lost_and_found_performance_investigated/index.html Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any HDDs/SSDs with free firmware... perhaps some basic USB Mass Storage devices qualify as not requiring any (and running hdparm -I on the few USB keys I have produces garbage which might suggest as much)? However I'm guessing you (as well as most/all free software advocates on this list) do use a HDD or SSD of some kind. If my above assumptions are correct, why treat graphics driver firmware specially? I'm certainly not saying it's wrong to demand free firmware, however I'm curious why some firmware is treated differently. Is it because one lives in your filesystem on your HDD, but the other is stored in an EEPROM (and if so, why does this matter)? Or is it just because the graphics card is from Think Penguin? -Adam signature.asc Description: Digital 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
Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
My second hand ATI is serving me well, very nice support in fedora. Radeon HD 3870, hooked up to 2 24" monitors, runs nicely even though it's quite old. Not sure I'd want to support nvidia... Bianca - on my phone, please excuse my brevity On Aug 25, 2012 4:32 PM, "Ben Sturmfels" wrote: > Adam Bolte writes: > > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 07:50:00PM +1000, Ben Sturmfels wrote: > >> I see they've already raised $8M in pre-sales though, so perhaps > >> there are other free software organisations that would benefit more > >> from a donation right now. I'm thinking instead of buying a video > >> card from Think Penguin [3]. > >> > >> [3] > https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/geforce-9500gt-1gb-pci-express-20-video-card-gnulinux > > > > I just noticed... it's an Nvidia card you are talking about. This gives > me > > mixed feelings. Sure supporting free software drivers and stores that > find > > such hardware is great, but supporting Nvidia? > > > > I'm assuming it's still the case that Intel drivers are 100% free > software for > > at least some of their newer cards, although obviously the performance > won't > > be the same. > > > > AMD makes cards that have excellent free software drivers, and (unlike > Nvidia) > > they release the specs... however most modern AMD cards rely on non-free > > firmware - firmware that isn't built into the device's ROM, but instead > needs > > to be loaded by the driver during initialisation. > > > > Even so, it seems to me that AMD is doing far better at helping the free > > software driver communities than Nvidia ever has. I have a Radeon HD 5870 > > (which I purchased with Bitcoin) with 6 LCDs hooked up to it at work, > running > > the free software drivers. The performance is great. I can play OpenArea > with > > max detail at 7680x1024, 60fps (I use v-sync or it would likely be much > > higher). There are some FoV issues in doing that I haven't completely > > resolved, but it's quite impressive to see. > > > > Note: It appears that newer Nvidia cards also require proprietary > firmware, > > until free software drivers are reverse-engineered. > > http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/InstallDRM#Firmware > > > > I would like to put more pressure on AMD to release the code for their > > firmware though, or at least see as much effort put forward to develop > free > > firmware for AMD cards as we have seen from the Nvidia > reverse-engineering > > guys. > > Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, it's certainly an imperfect choice. > Buying one of these Nvidia cards support Think Penguin, a new vendor who > sells hardware compatible with fully-free software. On the other hand, it > results in some profits for Nvidia, who are extremely unfriendly to free > software. > > Choosing an AMD card means I'm giving some profits to AMD, who offer > dramatically better support for free software. On the other hand though, > I'd be required to use proprietary firmware. > > In terms of my personal freedom today, the Nvidia card would be the best > choice. For encouraging free software-compatible hardware in the longer > term though, I don't know that there's a clear answer. > > Ben > > ___ > Free-software-melb mailing list > Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au > > http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb > > ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
Adam Bolte writes: > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 07:50:00PM +1000, Ben Sturmfels wrote: >> I see they've already raised $8M in pre-sales though, so perhaps >> there are other free software organisations that would benefit more >> from a donation right now. I'm thinking instead of buying a video >> card from Think Penguin [3]. >> >> [3] >> https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/geforce-9500gt-1gb-pci-express-20-video-card-gnulinux > > I just noticed... it's an Nvidia card you are talking about. This gives me > mixed feelings. Sure supporting free software drivers and stores that find > such hardware is great, but supporting Nvidia? > > I'm assuming it's still the case that Intel drivers are 100% free software for > at least some of their newer cards, although obviously the performance won't > be the same. > > AMD makes cards that have excellent free software drivers, and (unlike Nvidia) > they release the specs... however most modern AMD cards rely on non-free > firmware - firmware that isn't built into the device's ROM, but instead needs > to be loaded by the driver during initialisation. > > Even so, it seems to me that AMD is doing far better at helping the free > software driver communities than Nvidia ever has. I have a Radeon HD 5870 > (which I purchased with Bitcoin) with 6 LCDs hooked up to it at work, running > the free software drivers. The performance is great. I can play OpenArea with > max detail at 7680x1024, 60fps (I use v-sync or it would likely be much > higher). There are some FoV issues in doing that I haven't completely > resolved, but it's quite impressive to see. > > Note: It appears that newer Nvidia cards also require proprietary firmware, > until free software drivers are reverse-engineered. > http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/InstallDRM#Firmware > > I would like to put more pressure on AMD to release the code for their > firmware though, or at least see as much effort put forward to develop free > firmware for AMD cards as we have seen from the Nvidia reverse-engineering > guys. Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, it's certainly an imperfect choice. Buying one of these Nvidia cards support Think Penguin, a new vendor who sells hardware compatible with fully-free software. On the other hand, it results in some profits for Nvidia, who are extremely unfriendly to free software. Choosing an AMD card means I'm giving some profits to AMD, who offer dramatically better support for free software. On the other hand though, I'd be required to use proprietary firmware. In terms of my personal freedom today, the Nvidia card would be the best choice. For encouraging free software-compatible hardware in the longer term though, I don't know that there's a clear answer. Ben pgpjEDVGDOoJ7.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
Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 07:50:00PM +1000, Ben Sturmfels wrote: > I see they've already raised $8M in pre-sales though, so perhaps > there are other free software organisations that would benefit more > from a donation right now. I'm thinking instead of buying a video > card from Think Penguin [3]. > > [3] > https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/geforce-9500gt-1gb-pci-express-20-video-card-gnulinux I just noticed... it's an Nvidia card you are talking about. This gives me mixed feelings. Sure supporting free software drivers and stores that find such hardware is great, but supporting Nvidia? I'm assuming it's still the case that Intel drivers are 100% free software for at least some of their newer cards, although obviously the performance won't be the same. AMD makes cards that have excellent free software drivers, and (unlike Nvidia) they release the specs... however most modern AMD cards rely on non-free firmware - firmware that isn't built into the device's ROM, but instead needs to be loaded by the driver during initialisation. Even so, it seems to me that AMD is doing far better at helping the free software driver communities than Nvidia ever has. I have a Radeon HD 5870 (which I purchased with Bitcoin) with 6 LCDs hooked up to it at work, running the free software drivers. The performance is great. I can play OpenArea with max detail at 7680x1024, 60fps (I use v-sync or it would likely be much higher). There are some FoV issues in doing that I haven't completely resolved, but it's quite impressive to see. Note: It appears that newer Nvidia cards also require proprietary firmware, until free software drivers are reverse-engineered. http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/InstallDRM#Firmware I would like to put more pressure on AMD to release the code for their firmware though, or at least see as much effort put forward to develop free firmware for AMD cards as we have seen from the Nvidia reverse-engineering guys. Regards, Adam signature.asc Description: Digital 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
Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:44:09PM +1000, Matt Giuca wrote: > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Ben Sturmfels wrote: > > > I see they've already raised $8M in pre-sales though, so perhaps there are > > other free software organisations that would benefit more from a donation > > right now. I'm thinking instead of buying a video card from Think Penguin > > [3]. > > > > Also the Kickstarter for Ouya is over ... > > I pledged for one, so if it all goes well, I'll let you guys know how it is. I pre-ordered one over the weekend also. -Adam signature.asc Description: Digital 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
Re: [free-software-melb] Chipping in for an Ouya console?
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Ben Sturmfels wrote: > I see they've already raised $8M in pre-sales though, so perhaps there are > other free software organisations that would benefit more from a donation > right now. I'm thinking instead of buying a video card from Think Penguin > [3]. > Also the Kickstarter for Ouya is over ... I pledged for one, so if it all goes well, I'll let you guys know how it is. ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
