> > How so? They've both been clear about what they want and what they
> > stand
> > for.
>
> Every book is new until one has read it. It's interesting to see the
> different take
> these two crusaders have on the firmware.
>
How so? that RMS is ranting about another undoable unmaintainable
project (writting "free" firmware)? because he's kind of out of touch,
rather than getting to the real issue which is that the firmware is
what makes the device not a useless collection of silicon, and if you
buy the device you should be able to stuff the firmware on it without
restrictions, and your favorite OS should be able to include the
firmware and write a driver to the interface it provides.
RMS wants to change the issue by saying instead of distributable
firmware and documentation, he instead wants documentation to write a
*replacement* firmware? Do you guys realize how retarded that is? how
bug prone and what a collosal waste of developer time it will be?
Doing what RMS is suggesting would set Open Source stuff backward a
lot. Instead of writing drivers for working hardware (using the
vendor's firmware on the device) which is what we have *ALWAYS* done
(the firmware just used to be included with the device) instead, we
would have Open Source developers pissing away years of time making
the device work at all... Give me a break guys.
The difference is Theo understands modern hardware, and that this
issue is only with us because nowadays hardware doesn't come with it's
firmware burned onto the device, but rather it gets loaded at
init-time. Basically OpenBSD would like to make sure developers can
continue to support a loadable firmware device the same way that old
style devices with embedded firmware are supported. We are not trying
to replace the vendor's firmware.
Stay on target... stay on target...
-Bob
