https://trisquel.info/en/forum/internet-0
Firstly, I have to apologize for having a bad English. I'm doing my best.
To Chris: indeed, this is no place for non-free software; how about a sort of
"user agreement" of following FSF Guidelines in forums too?
To Darksoul71:
-------
The main problem with leaving out so called non-free firmware is that:
a) Joe Average can hardly understand why his device doesn't work; b) Joe
Average will hardly understand the intended goal of distributions like
Trisquel.
Well: a) "Your device doesn't work in Trisquel GNU/Linux because (I)
Trisquel, being a [https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html Free
GNU/Linux distribution], doesn't distribute non-free software and (II) there
is only non-free software for your device" seems pretty easy to understand;
and b) "a)(I)" addresses that if Joe Average is really interested in finding
out more about that.
If he isn't, try to make him interested, teaching him what
[https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ copyleft] and the four freedoms mean, how they
impact on his
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html life]
and [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/practical.html experience], and
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html why he should get
involved]; if he is that sort of person who refuses to listen to other people
and refuse to try to understand what's happening by viewing it, even if only
for a moment, as others would view, give him some slaps and have fun.
-------
One thing that bothers me about this "we are not gonna load this firmware
cause it's evil !"-stuff: [...]
Stop referring to [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software]
as you were admirably mature and Free Software was some sort of children's
thing. You are despising an image in your mind and believing that image is
the concrete thing with the same name (Free Software).
[...] To my limited understanding [at least, you recognize it] such a
firmware is dynamically loaded in order to provide an interface to a hardware
device (be it a scanner, NIC, GPU). [...]
It's insufficient to merely say it "provides an interface" for the device to
other software (in which case it would be a ''driver'' and, if this driver
and the other parts of system were Free as in Freedom, it would, at the end,
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/keep-control-of-your-computing.html give the
control to the user]); it indeed ''controls'' that device (in which case it's
the binary which takes the control itself,
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-root-of-this-problem.html doing whatever
the developer wants to do] and probably what the user wants, too).
[...] OK, a "non-free" firmware is not open sourced [...]
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html No.] A
"non-free" firmware is non-free software. See
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#nonfree-firmware
this].
[...] and somewhat bad because the hardware vendors did not choose to make
their hardware / interface specification open. [...]
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html No.] It's
bad because they didn't choose to make it
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free].
[...] if specs where open someone could write an open-source driver [...]
You're probably right, though it would be better to write a Free Software
driver. Could implementing an open specification be illegal? I don't know.
[...] BUT if this firmware would not be loaded as blob inside the linuxkernel
but simply from a ROM inside the hardware...what would be then ? [...]
Again, non-free firmware. Some differences would be the storage device of the
blob and the software containing it. You got it:
[...] The hardware device would thus not require any blob to be loaded inside
Linux but would it be more free than the device which requires loading a
firmware as small blob? I doubt so...
Indeed. The goal is a free system; Linux would be more free (good for us),
but the system wouldn't (and would be worse for us: to write a software is
somehow easier than manufacturing a piece of hardware).
-------
It's not all black and white. [...]
It is black and white at the level of freedom: there is only freedom or jail.
Then, we have to apply this to the circumstances: how much free is my system?
Where is it free and where is it non-free? It's like Chris wrote: it is more
black and white than you think. (Don't forget we often -- if not always --
say "free" meaning "100% free".)
[...] If you have issues about loading blobs inside Linux, then you also
should reject all hardware devices which have non-open firmware on chip as
well. [...]
Damn, you just said it's not all black and white! ''In the previous phrase!''
[...] Also lets not forget about the BIOS as Chris mentioned.
So, since (I) it's black and white and (II) the white is impossible, are you
suggesting we should give up and become "dark souls"...? (see how I did it?
:])
-------
My final [rhetorical] conclusion on this topic: Many, if not most, "free"
hardware options essentially aren't free ! [Really?] [...] We, as Linux user,
often accept this mainly because there are no other options beside designing
your own hardware [...]
So, "''we'', as a Linux ''user'', do it because ''you'' can't"... wait.
There's something ''very'' wrong here. And at last there is the option of not
using the hardware if possible. Besides, "we" are
[https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html GNU/Linux] users, unless you are
meaning kernel use only.
[...] Limiting [who's limiting?] the user to access ["the user's access to"?]
his hardware simply because the manufacturer resells a standard design [?]
which requires [who requires? That standard design or the copyright/patent
holder?] loading a part of the code as software [let's think: you meant Free
Software is limiting up there...?] for me makes no sense [well, does
something here makes sense?] since we deal with closed source nearly
everywhere [I agree! It's better to play soccer in a field full of mines than
in a field with some dog poop...]. Even CPUs have their own propritary
microcode but we all use them. [Indeed! So, we can haz BOOM instead of poop!]
Saying a device is more free than another simply because it runs without
loading firmware from the operating system but from a ROM inside the device
is close to self-deception.
Indeed, it's self-deception. But this is '''your''' self-deception: '''you'''
made it up. What Chris said was that there would ''remain'' some non-free
pieces of software in the system after the ''substitution'' of other non-free
pieces of software by free ones -- surprisingly, when it's done, the amount
of free software increases, and the amount of non-free software decreases. Or
I was teached arithmetics wrong?
-------
Everyone who had to do with hardware design (e.g. VHDL) knows that separation
between hardware and software is not feasible today anymore. [Unfortunately,
over time, God ended the game. It was so fun!] Pretty much every device is a
blackbox. The only difference is where you draw the border. [Well, let's play
with that, so! But I hope someday we'll have box of other colors too.]
-------
Just my two cents,
Just my two hours,
-D$ [What? "Dark$oul"? May God help you...]
Sphynx
