Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

[Luke Shumaker]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:05:08 -0500,
Felipe Sanches wrote:
> Regarding devices that rely on non-free fw but that could also work
> "without firmware"... I think that most likely does not exist.

An example: Many Radeon graphics cards work without firmware, but have
no 2D or 3D acceleration.  The simple legacy (VGA?) ways for talking
to it are implemented in hardware and work without firmware, but the
more complex modern ways that are required for decent performance
don't.  It's fine for, say running Emacs and basic web-browsing, but
VLC won't do better than 5 FPS while fullscreen.

> There are devices that have the fw loaded into RAM and thus require
> an install at every power up otherwise they will simply not work.
>
> But there are also devices that have factory installed firmware
> stored in permanent ROM memory and then provide a firmware update
> mechanism that can be used to install newer versions of the fw (with
> bugfixes perhaps, but could also include new anti-features and
> likely new bugs as well). In this case, you can use the old in-ROM
> firmware or the new firmware provided by the kernel.
> 
> Having said that, I have the impression that some people actually
> refer to running the in-ROM factory fw whey they say the device may
> run "without a firmware", which is surely a misleading way of
> expressing what actually happens.

I believe that this is the situation with microcode updates.

-- 
Happy hacking,
~ Luke Shumaker

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

[Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 07:51:44 -0800 (PST)
"Jason Self"  wrote:

> Perhaps a more philosophical question is: *Should* a free program,
> especially one used in FSF-endorsed distros, be generating requests
> for proprietary programs in the first place? Regardless of how they
> might be handled.
I find the requests unclear. With Linux-libre 4.12.14 and Parabola I
have:
> ieee80211 phy1: rt2x00lib_request_firmware: Info - Loading firmware file 
> '/*(DEBLOBBED)*/'
> 1-5:1.0: Missing Free firmware (non-Free firmware loading is disabled)
> rt2800usb 1-5:1.0: Direct firmware load for /*(DEBLOBBED)*/ failed with error 
> -2
> ieee80211 phy1: rt2x00lib_request_firmware: Error - Failed to request Firmware

"Missing" makes me think that I should go find the firmware somewhere
and add it because for some reason it's missing.

A message that would encourage a user or developer to work toward:
- having a free firmware written
- having linux-libre working without a firmware

Sometime the device is working fine without firmware, so here it would
be nice to have an idea of what is the difference of behavior of the
hardware between no firmware and loading the non-free firmware.
This would either inform the user that everything is fine or push
towards making it work better without a firmware or with a free
firmware.

For instance the message could point to a page on the linux-libre
website that would explains all that in greater length, as it would be
complicated to explain all that in very few lines of messages (which
may even be redundant).

Denis.


pgpLvhRQhEiXJ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS non-free repo

[Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 06:34:21 +0100
Jean Louis  wrote:
> Free GNU operating system can be free on one
> domain while other domain selling laptops
> requiring some proprietary software.
> 
> Then again, such laptop sales shall not be
> promoted as having operating system endorsed by
> FSF if such is not fully free.
I don't see the issue here. Shipping Trisquel or PureOS on laptops is
good. However Trisquel or PureOS should not promote non-free software.
Being able to run an FSDG (Free Software Distribution Guidelines)
compliant distribution is not enough for freedom though, but there a
certification for full systems: The RYF (Respect Your Freedom)
certification. See fsf.org/ryf for more details.

> That is proprietary software within the CPU.
That proprietary software runs on a separate processor, and unlike the
BIOS/UEFI, it is not run by the main CPU.
When you buy a "discrete Intel CPU", nowadays, it also contains a GPU,
and also the management engine processor. They are all in the same
physical chip, but the management engine processor runs its own OS
and tries to prevent the main CPU from taking control of it.

> it further means that majority of Intel run computers are
> running non-free software on the CPU itself.
Not on the main CPU.

> The question is does the update of the Intel
> Management Engine constitute part of the operating
> system or not?
No, it's not. The flash chip that holds the BIOS/UEFI is partitioned
and has a partition for the management engine, and a partition for the
BIOS/UEFI.

> If such update is distributed by the operating
> system, then is the distribution free?
I guess that they do not distribute "BIOS updates" that as part of the
operating system, but if they did, they would need to remove it to keep
being FSDG compliant.

> Even those computers using Libreboot are still
> using the Intel Management Engine.
Not all are. The Thinkpad X200 has a management engine but it is
deactivated by removing the code it's supposed to load.

> That is different branch of the fight for privacy. Best
> would be replacing Intel with free CPU. But does
> it exist?
Computers that works with only free software would be enough, with the
additional requirement of having also free software microcode.
Free systems can work without shipping or using non-free microcode
updates, but then years later issues you end up with issues like
Spectre and Meltdown that you cannot fix.
See this link for more details:
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Hardware/ReverseEngineering#CPU_Microcode

> Intel processors already contain inside Intel
> Management Engine, isn't that modified MINIX
> inside?
[...]
> It means there is no current solution to have Intel
> Management Engine as free software,
[...]

See my article about the management engine here for more details:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/sysadmin/the-management-engine-an-attack-on-computer-users-freedom

Denis.


pgpcWBvEIaRvA.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)

[Therese Godefroy via RT]

Le Dim 21 Jan 2018 19:12:11, js...@gnu.org a écrit :
> One way is that this ticket can be moved into the licensing queue with
> ideas/feedback/suggestions added.

Hi Jason,

I don't think it's a good idea to dump such a long thread on them. The request 
would certainly go directly to the bottom of their todo list and stay there. It 
would be more efficient to give them a few lines of explanation, along with a 
diff. As I said, the gnu-linux-libre people are the most qualified to do this.

Best,
Thérèse