Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LVFS – Linux Vendor Firmware Service

fwupd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: LVFS – Linux Vendor Firmware Service

#51

Post by pxc »

zamalek wrote: post #22

This is honestly a gigantic ad for Dell and Lenovo. Looking at the vendor list substantially changed my opinion on Dell in a matter of minutes.

I'm not a huge fan of the kind of laptops Dell sells with Linux on them (thin, poorly ventilated ultraportable donglebooks) or super loyal to the Dell brand or whatever.

However, I will say that their Linux laptops I've used have been fine executions of their concepts, and the Linux support, including for firmware updates, has been problem-free even though I don't run the stock OS.

They're a good choice for Linux laptops if thin and light ultraportables are your style.

Re: LVFS – Linux Vendor Firmware Service

#52

Post by pxc »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #10
rmolin88 wrote: post #5

I use `fwupd`[0] all of the time. Mandatory: I use arch btw :D [0]( https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/fwupd )

One of the cool things about Fedora or Arch is we get to see these changes in their infancy before most are aware. This, pipewire, etc. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemFirmwareUpdates

Fedora devs often also develop those components and are among the first to integrate them. Fedora seems like a great desktop for those curious about what's coming next to the Linux desktop stack.

NixOS doesn't curate a default desktop experience like Fedora does, but it's also a great place to enjoy some of this tech early, and in a very risk-free way thanks to declarative configuration and rollbacks. PipeWire has been effortless to set up (and impressively compatible, performance, and unobtrusive in its own right!) on NixOS for some time now.

A rolling release or a cutting edge kind of distro, even with regular releases, can be really nice if you're into exploring this stuff, like you say.

Re: LVFS – Linux Vendor Firmware Service

#53

Post by georgyo »

pxc wrote: post #52
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the cool things about Fedora or Arch is we get to see these changes in their infancy before most are aware. This, pipewire, etc. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemFirmwareUpdates

Fedora devs often also develop those components and are among the first to integrate them. Fedora seems like a great desktop for those curious about what's coming next to the Linux desktop stack. NixOS doesn't curate a default desktop experience like Fedora does, but it's also a great place to enjoy some of this tech early, and in a very risk-free way thanks to declarative configuration and rollbacks. PipeWire has be…

I'm a big fan of NixOS, but sometimes it is obscenely difficult to test new things.

Example is iptables-nft. On every other distribution installing that is enough to make all applications use the nft version. In NixOS, you can easily change the environment path to iptables-nft, but any package that can modify rules won't be updated. And a package that updates rules is systemd. So attempting what is normally a 1 minute change is now recompiling every single package.

Re: LVFS – Linux Vendor Firmware Service

#54

Post by prmoustache »

mesebrec wrote: post #28
zamalek wrote: post #22

This is honestly a gigantic ad for Dell and Lenovo. Looking at the vendor list substantially changed my opinion on Dell in a matter of minutes.

I just wrote in a different comment that this completely sold me on Dell. I got a Dell laptop from work with Windows on it. Installed Ubuntu and it immediately prompted me to update the firmware. What an amazing experience! I always recommend Dell to people looking for a Linux laptop. Although I hear Lenovo started to get their shit together too in the last few years.

I am using both a professional Dell latitude laptop and a personal thinkpad on Fedora and both receive firmware updates. And I am pretty sure I saw the Dell USB-C docking station receiving updates through this too.

Not sure this applies also to non Latitude/Thinkpad consumer models though but I tend to never recommend them anyway.

Re: LVFS – Linux Vendor Firmware Service

#55

Post by pxc »

georgyo wrote: post #53
pxc wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fedora devs often also develop those components and are among the first to integrate them. Fedora seems like a great desktop for those curious about what's coming next to the Linux desktop stack. NixOS doesn't curate a default desktop experience like Fedora does, but it's also a great place to enjoy some of this tech early, and in a very risk-free way thanks to declarative configuration and rollbacks. PipeWire has be…

I'm a big fan of NixOS, but sometimes it is obscenely difficult to test new things. Example is iptables-nft. On every other distribution installing that is enough to make all applications use the nft version. In NixOS, you can easily change the environment path to iptables-nft, but any package that can modify rules won't be updated. And a package that updates rules is systemd. So attempting what is normally a 1 minut…

Yeah, it would be nice if Nixpkgs had something like Guix's grafts for replacing library dependencies like that without requiring mass rebuilds.

There, I suppose GuixSD is a stronger proposition than NixOS at the moment.

Re: LVFS – Linux Vendor Firmware Service

#56

Post by hughsient »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #37
hughsient wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is probably leaking information thru its comm channel It's really not. The fwupd process doesn't have any internet access at all -- all communication is done through a socket over DBus. All the telemetry is done with the user explicitly opting in -- we even show the JSON in the terminal that is going to be sent. > Does anyone know why this is running 24/7 We auto-quit on idle or for low memory conditions -- un…

Good to know. Why is it a root daemon and not a command/library if other tools are directing it? If I had to guess, so the end user does not have to elevate to superuser to initiate actions?

Yes, mostly that. Depending on local policy, it might be possible to upgrade [only] signed firmware from the correct vendor without authenticating. Downgrade always requires authentication for obvious reasons. Most firmware requires you to be root (some even CAP_SYS_ADMIN) to just enumerate the hardware and read the firmware version.

The other main reasons is that some hardware is really, really slow (like 8 seconds to query a dock PD version, or 12 seconds to query a thunderbolt retimer version) and you can't really build a GUI that can do firmware update operations with potentially minutes of delay for each action. Also, cache invalidation is hard if you can't see the device uevents and usb hotplug events.

Re: LVFS – Linux Vendor Firmware Service

#58

Post by pabs3 »

Some wikis for firmware updates of things not supported by LVFS:

https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware/Updates https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BIOSUpdate https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/BIOS_Update https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:How_update_your_bios https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Flashing_BIOS_from_Linu...

Re: LVFS – Linux Vendor Firmware Service

#59

Post by nubinetwork »

I looked into fwupd once... it sounds nice to be able to update through a central service, but then it devolved into a rabbit hole of turning on all the privacy bugs I had previously disabled on my laptop. Why any of that is part of a firmware updater, I don't know.

Re: LVFS – Linux Vendor Firmware Service

#60

Post by HankB99 »

hypothesis wrote: post #38
mixmastamyk wrote: post #23

Don't know much about it yet, and it is undoubtedly is a useful service. However looking at that page boasting telemetry and noticing an always running fwupd process running here as root it looks like this is probably leaking information thru its comm channel. Does anyone know why this is running 24/7? I don't expect my firmware to be changing minute to minute. I need to get OpenSnitch running to keep an eye on these…

On the bright side, you can finally mask it in latest Fedora without Software store going haywire and spamming you with useless error messages about it being unavailable. Still waiting for that to arrive in next Debian… I’m sure it’s useful to Dell users, but not much to anyone with DIY setups.

> Still waiting for that to arrive in next Debian…

This is the second comment I've noticed "waiting for it to hit Debian" and I don't understand.

  hbarta@olive:~$ apt-cache policy fwupd
  fwupd:
    Installed: 1.5.7-4
    Candidate: 1.5.7-4
    Version table:
   \*\* 1.5.7-4 500
          500 http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye/main amd64 
  Packages
          100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
  hbarta@olive:~$
It's even on Raspberry Pi OS and I wonder if it serves any purpose there. Pi firmware is updated via APT unless I misunderstand what I see getting updated (raspi-firmware). Would fwupd handle updates for USB connected devices such as SSDs?
Post reply on HN