On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 09:25:52PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 04:33:40PM -0600, David Young wrote:
> >
> > BTW, I think a reasonable precaution to take with a lot of devices,
> > their firmware and drivers, open- or closed-source (but especially
> > closed source),
Hi, I'd like to butt in and name-drop some websites/groups that
make me hopeful:
http://opencores.org/projects
http://www.lowrisc.org/
...
It's beyond open source firmware, it's completely open hardware.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 04:33:40PM -0600, David Young wrote:
>
> BTW, I think a reasonable precaution to take with a lot of devices,
> their firmware and drivers, open- or closed-source (but especially
> closed source), is to put them under supervision of, say, an IOMMU.
It's reasonable, for sure
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:53:21AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 04:00:25PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> >
> > > If yes, because?
> >
> > You would either have to redo all the firmware yourself or drop support for
> > that device.
>
> Never mind that OpenBSD's po
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Jorge Luis
wrote:
> If yes, what are the operating systems that ship without blobs?
Sure. Trisquel GNU/Linux for example. Go ahead and load it onto your
computer and find that very little of your hardware is supported. Go
get hardware that works without proprietar
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
Never mind that OpenBSD's position is basically horseshit: they have not,
after all, removed support for all devices which *have onboard firmware
for which no source code is supplied*.
. and this is emblematic of why I love NetBSD and didn't g
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:53:21AM -0300, Jorge Luis wrote:
> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> The result is that we end up with additional support because of them. Some
> of them write device drivers, or some of them create pressure against
> vendors and then things become free. And in the end, the whole go
Hello,
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:00:25 +0100
Martin Husemann wrote:
> However, IMHO binary blobs that are just downloaded to a device and started
> are not much worse than firmware that comes out of ROMs.
Much easier to update.
have fun
Michael
Hello,
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:53:21 -0300
Jorge Luis wrote:
> NetBSD really include blobs?
>
> If yes, because?
Firmware blobs, as far as I know that's it.
have fun
Michael
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 04:00:25PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
>
> > If yes, because?
>
> You would either have to redo all the firmware yourself or drop support for
> that device.
Never mind that OpenBSD's position is basically horseshit: they have not,
after all, removed support for all devi
from Jorge Luis:
> Exist operating systems that ship without blobs?
> If yes, what are the operating systems that ship without blobs?
There is LibertyBSD, recently forked from OpenBSD, which has been deblobbed as
much as its creator could see.
Website is
libertybsd.net
There are als
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:03:16AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Jorge Luis writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > NetBSD really include blobs?
>
> Yes, because it is the only currently known path to make some drivers
> work. Mostly this is firmware to be loaded.
>
> It would seem reasonable to have some M
Jorge Luis writes:
> Exist operating systems that ship without blobs?
>
> If yes, what are the operating systems that ship without blobs?
I was not clear that OpenBSD was entirely blob-free, but it's
believable. I suspect Debian is also in that category (on
software-freedom
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:53:21AM -0300, Jorge Luis wrote:
> NetBSD really include blobs?
Yes, look at /libdata/firmware/ and /usr/libdata/firmware.
Lots of devices requires firmware nowadays, and only for some of them
we have source.
> If yes, because?
You would either have to redo all the fir
e/
Exist operating systems that ship without blobs?
If yes, what are the operating systems that ship without blobs?
NetBSD really include blobs?
If yes, because?
15 matches
Mail list logo
