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

The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

ariadne.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 205 posts

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#171

Post by ldarby »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #155
oefrha wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA is very specific about the harm done by FSF's policy, unfortunately you either missed the arguments or chose to left them out. E.g. > The FSF “Respects Your Freedom” certification has a loophole so large you could drive a truck through it called the “secondary processor exception”. > ... > This means that users of the Librem 5 phone are objectively harmed in three ways: first, they are unaware of the existence of…

> that users of the Librem 5 phone are objectively harmed in three ways That's not true though. First: things that were done in order to move the blobs out of PureOS weren't hidden in any way, to the contrary - they were loudly announced as "steps towards RYF certification", describing exactly how that's supposed to work in public blog posts[0]. I can't see how that counts as "[users] unaware of the existence of the…

How much engineering effort went in to this, instead of other improvements like reducing power consumption / increasing battery life?

I would have bought a Librem 5 but haven't only beceause of the power issues (which is same reason I didn't get a Pinephone).

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#172

Post by aesh2Xa1 »

throwaway81523 wrote: post #141
MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I referred to that when I mentioned "loopholes." It's a contradiction for sure, but either you have a "libre" device with non-free components isolated over a serial interface, or you have a less capable device. Disingenuous, maybe.

I have sometimes thought of ditching my phone plan and getting a wifi hotspot, just to stop the phone carrier from messing with the software in my phone through OTA updates and whatnot. All communication would be through TCP and that would stop the phone carrier from talking to the mobile baseband processor, which could be completely disabled or removed. It would even allow ditching the whole phone and using a wifi-o…

Another HN user, tptacek, has made comments going back years now that point out how modern Android (at least Pixels) and iPhones all isolate the baseband behind a serial/USB peripheral interface. I'm not sure you would gain anything at all by going with your surmised setup above.

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#173

Post by tata71 »

aesh2Xa1 wrote: post #172
throwaway81523 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have sometimes thought of ditching my phone plan and getting a wifi hotspot, just to stop the phone carrier from messing with the software in my phone through OTA updates and whatnot. All communication would be through TCP and that would stop the phone carrier from talking to the mobile baseband processor, which could be completely disabled or removed. It would even allow ditching the whole phone and using a wifi-o…

Another HN user, tptacek, has made comments going back years now that point out how modern Android (at least Pixels) and iPhones all isolate the baseband behind a serial/USB peripheral interface. I'm not sure you would gain anything at all by going with your surmised setup above.

Many carriers do OTA config stuff when you insert their SIM,

cooperated with by your carrier.

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#174

Post by seba_dos1 »

ldarby wrote: post #171
seba_dos1 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that users of the Librem 5 phone are objectively harmed in three ways That's not true though. First: things that were done in order to move the blobs out of PureOS weren't hidden in any way, to the contrary - they were loudly announced as "steps towards RYF certification", describing exactly how that's supposed to work in public blog posts[0]. I can't see how that counts as "[users] unaware of the existence of the…

How much engineering effort went in to this, instead of other improvements like reducing power consumption / increasing battery life? I would have bought a Librem 5 but haven't only beceause of the power issues (which is same reason I didn't get a Pinephone).

Compared to other areas, I'd say "negligible" - but I wasn't involved personally (only joined the team later on), so take it with a grain of salt as it's not impossible that I'm missing something.

The M4 core was already there in the SoC sitting unused, it's not like it was added just for firmware loading ;)

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#175

Post by guilhas »

In terms of security and stability I think FSF view is correct

Although I think they could have a second tier, more relaxed for Debian, NixOS and others, that exclude nonfree software/firmware but allows you to enable it. But in general I think it is commendable that they have been able preserve their values and not dilute and disappear

When I buy my hardware I make sure it is compatible, stable and won't have many issues with Libre Linux, even thing like swapping the wireless card to a compatible one

And this has been the rule also for all Linux users. You want to make sure you have a smooth experience, you will have to check for hardware recommendations. Want fingerprint working? Better be sure before you buy

Regarding security most Libre people are not serving cloud services in their computers, and install only open source. So the microcode security mitigations like, spectre and meltdown, are mostly unnecessary. Also browsers and kernels have been patched for it anyway

When I configure a server I will probably majorally never upgrade it, because it will always cause problems, sometimes small, other times big headaches. I would sooner configure a new one and migrate things slowly

If one microcode update is enough to fix your system is also enough to break it: Intel to disable TSX by default on more CPUs with new microcode https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27664856

This recent security paranoia that you should be updating everything every day or else the hackers will get you! seems unnecessary and potentially harmful

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#176

Post by jimmyvalmer »

marcodiego wrote: post #101
koprulusector wrote: post #97

I’m confused. Who’s the target audience of this post? Anyone strictly adhering to FSF recommendations is most likely not a for profit business, and therefore probably doesn’t give a care about spectre or meltdown, for example. I for one add mitigations=off to all my personal systems boot flags.

Although small, FLOSS supporters are severely underserved. I think it is possible to use the certification as a means to profit. Even if only for a few products or to get a good image among a faithful group. The sites listed selling ryf-certified devices are certainly benefitting commercially from that.

FLOSS supporters are severely underserved

I'd say the invisible hand is getting it right here. FLOSS advocates are the worst kind of customer -- both frugal and sententious.

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#177

Post by jimmyvalmer »

ziml77 wrote: post #111
yellowapple wrote: post #103

Not only does the FSF object to the inclusion of nonfree firmware, but it also objects to even so much as making it available. Case study here would be OpenBSD, which is about as free of an operating system as it gets, and which does not ship with nonfree firmware by default. However, because of the existence of the `fw_update` command (which - by the explicit consent of the user/owner of the machine - fetches any no…

They explicitly rationalize the Windows builds of Emacs, so I can only assume that's the same rationale as for any other GNU software > To improve the use of proprietary systems is a misguided goal. Our aim, rather, is to eliminate them. We include support for some proprietary systems in GNU Emacs in the hope that running Emacs on them will give users a taste of freedom and thus lead them to free themselves. Taken fr…

We include support for some proprietary systems in GNU Emacs in the hope that running Emacs on them will give users a taste of freedom

The weakness of this sauce is staggering. I understand GNU Emacs wanting to preserve forty years of hard work supporting Windows and MacOS, but justifying it via the "taste of freedom" sets off my hypocrisy alarm. It's also just patently false because emacs users stick with Windows precisely because emacs still works there.

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#178

Post by jimmyvalmer »

yellowapple wrote: post #103

Not only does the FSF object to the inclusion of nonfree firmware, but it also objects to even so much as making it available. Case study here would be OpenBSD, which is about as free of an operating system as it gets, and which does not ship with nonfree firmware by default. However, because of the existence of the `fw_update` command (which - by the explicit consent of the user/owner of the machine - fetches any no…

the FSF maintains officially-sanctioned precompiled ports of software like GIMP for nonfree operating systems like Windows and macOS - because apparently it's okay to endorse those nonfree operating systems, because reasons.

I've been for the last year shouting myself hoarse on emacs forums regarding this hypocrisy.

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#179

Post by guilhas »

yellowapple wrote: post #103

Not only does the FSF object to the inclusion of nonfree firmware, but it also objects to even so much as making it available. Case study here would be OpenBSD, which is about as free of an operating system as it gets, and which does not ship with nonfree firmware by default. However, because of the existence of the `fw_update` command (which - by the explicit consent of the user/owner of the machine - fetches any no…

> Not only does the FSF object to the inclusion of nonfree firmware, but it also objects to even so much as making it available

Guix is FSF approved and also gives the ability to enable nonfree-firmware?

I know Debian is excluded for hosting nonfree software, even if disabled by default

Re: The FSF’s relationship with firmware is harmful to free software users

#180

Post by jimmyvalmer »

d0mine wrote: post #89
BrS96bVxXBLzf5B wrote: post #74

Attending an RMS talk at a university ~8 years ago, some (increasingly irritated) lecturers questioned him on the use of proprietary graphics drivers in image processing for use in medical equipment and research. While RMS argued his absolute stance that proprietary drivers are never permissible, the lecturers argued that the drivers were literally saving lives and people would die without them. "They should die for…

Imagine you are fighting for peasants rights; feudal doesn’t like it and orders to kill one peasant per day until you surrender. Question are you the bad guy for not surrendering?

Yes, if the right you're defending is as arcane and hard to explain as libre software.
Post reply on HN