The thing is--blame it on me being new perhaps--the freedom effect of free
software is compromised when proprietary or secret software/firmware controls
are lurking inside of hardware.
If these features or firmwares were forever frozen in, inside the hardware,
and their details were known, free software would be written around it,
retaining complete control over the system.
Chris, I'm not sure I'd call the interior functions of todays' hardware
"traditional". Some may be, but others are a new form of copy protection and
potential or actual spying and unauthorized data collection and lockdown
mechanisms.
Common now, not as before, the inside of many chips and hardware devices are
not only closed, but also legally secret, and the innards can be
updated/changed but not known to most people including the chip makers.
I like what free software represents as it gives me a sense that I am
operating in a general, fair, more or less trustable, best honest effort
environment. I would also call it "real". Not bloated, not the fanciest,
latest anything, just solid good stuff.
When I learned about vPro and DASH, my heart sank. Then there are Snowden's
claims too, which continue to be supported by evidence that what he said is
true.
Free software is the best thing going right now if one wants maximum personal
control over their computing environment. There is quite a bit of passion in
this forum over the possibility of non-free software being inadvertently
installed (Debian) because of easy connection to the wrong repository.
Many times people have recommended here that if you are choosing to add
non-free software, why even bother with something like Trisquel, as the
non-free items defeat the whole idea of "free". There are purists here, not
that that is a bad thing. In fact I like it.
To me, when someone buys non-free hardware instead of free(er) hardware,
their freedom is diminished and they ought to realize that and not think that
free software alone equals a free-as-in-freedom computing experience.
There is an attitude that it is ok, forgivable might be another word, when
hardware is not free, because it is mass-produced and the average person
can't build it or copy it, whereas with software, it can be written and
rewritten and copied (Not by this average person though who isn't a
programmer.) And that point of view makes sense in a software focused
organization like FSF or maybe Triquel; hardware is another world.
I have no urge to convert anyone to my views, it takes too much energy. It is
hard enough taking the time to write them down. I'd rather be researching and
looking for hardware right now.
Finding answers to what quantum gravity has pointed out:
1. can the hardware be used with free software?
2. does it contain any malicous features? (vpro etc)
(Thank you quantum. That is what I mean by "known", how much is "known" about
it. I would also add finding a source of purchase or supply or production
that is so basic and so small that there is virtually no interest in gumming
up those basics with extra locks, weaknesses/back doors, controls, etc. just
boring basic hardware that can be used as a computing device with free
software. That is what I mean by "clean". A source of supply that is not in
the mainstream and never will be.) Note there are companies who produce
tables and chairs exactly like those from the 1950s. Same methods, etc. Not a
big market, but a living for those producers. Believe me, there are people
and companies who have what I seek, I just haven't found them yet.
Chris you are doing a wonderful thing with ThinkPenguin, it's as close as
close can be for offering computers that resemble regular mass market
computers, only more special because of their adherence to philosophies of
freedom and free software. That's great. But they aren't 100% free. Your WiFi
usb is, which is working great for me by the way.
I hope you don't think that I don't respect or appreciate your hard work to
bring this about.
quantum's point #2 above is huge to me, because we can't know for sure what
is inside of hardware with features that are secret, but we can do our best
with it. Not exactly reverse engineering in my case, but maybe something like
hyper-knowledge if there is such a thing. If 1000 hours goes into the study
of point #2, I'll know a lot. And once things are known at that level, the
little important things, the clues, are easier to recognize and discern.
If there isn't interest in this sort of thing, that is ok. I am doing this to
satisfy my own desire. Things would perhaps move faster with additional help
here and there, but if not, I've got time, and definitely an interest.
Others have started projects http://opencores.org/ and have sadly fallen away
from updating them as often when conditions change. Note that I am more
interested in locating a source than designing or building from scratch as
opencores is.
Trisquel and the Free Software Foundation (even ThinkPenguin) shouldn't be
expected to do everything. I understand that. Finding the limits and
boundaries of these groups is helpful to me. Maybe what I wish to do doesn't
completely belong here, or with them, I am aware of that too.
Chris I agree from an organizational point of view that as you say "Little
steps require huge resource investments by lots of different people."
Independently I disagree.
One or two people can and often do make a huge contribution when freed from
the demands and politics and finances and whims of an organization. Not
saying either is better or worse than the other. They each have their
strengths. Over the years I've been in various groups as a member and in
leadership positions, I am best when just doing my own thing though.
quantum sorry I am not posting this under your post, I want to just handle
this in one place with one post.
You said, "I still don't understand why "baked-in proprietary code" is
considered as fine by rms; I mean code you can't change without distroying
the chip.
Can't this code spy on the users as well? What about a baked-in NSA backdoor?
If something like this is possible, maybe we should think about the initial
goales of the "100% free software pc" project again.
Nobody should take such an effort of work for creating a pc which can't even
provide privacy."
Exactly!! That is what I mean about RMS not being clear (to me, who is new).
Organizationally it may be too much to morph a software foundation into a
hardware area, but without decent hardware, the impact to the software has to
be significant. He says his list for reverse engineering is growing longer.
Perhaps that is the best thing to do with a membership that may be software
and programmer focused. Apply them to the craziest hardware and crack, crack,
crack.
I just want a true free-as-in-freedom computing experience kind of like I
used to have way back when. At one point copy protection was a pain but it
was easily defeated. This stuff today is insidious. And I hate spending money
on something that supports what I don't want, what I don't believe in, and
what I think is wrong. There need to be additional options. Privacy is a
given if what's mine is truly mine and is not compromised.
