I love the selective whiners that are the social media
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Jeff91 Jan 04, 2012 3:57 PM EDT |
I love all the people complaining about locked boot loaders. You know what you should also be complaining about? All the closed source drivers that power your ARM devices. They are a nightmare >.< You want hardware that gives you the freedom to do what you want with it buy x86 plain and simple. ~Jeff |
| JaseP Jan 04, 2012 4:36 PM EDT |
Until UEFI Secure Boot shows up, that is... Then, we'll have even more closed bootloaders to worry about... By the way, as far as video is concerned on Android, the system architecture makes closed source video drivers, "OK," from a license standpoint. Android uses its own framebuffer video architecture, rather than an X server. But other devices,... that may be different... |
| lcafiero Jan 04, 2012 4:36 PM EDT |
So let me see if I understand this, Jeff91 -- we shouldn't be concerned about locked boot loaders because we should be more concerned about closed source drivers on ARM devices? Could you explain why we shouldn't expect the same bootloading freedoms we now enjoy on our x86 machines on newer hardware? I'm not being flippant. I'm serious. I'd like to know your reasoning behind this. |
| gus3 Jan 04, 2012 4:45 PM EDT |
How about closed-source x86 implementations? I think we should all go OpenRISC+WishBone. (If only...) |
| Jeff91 Jan 04, 2012 5:02 PM EDT |
@Icafiero my point was even with an unlocked boot loader you aren't going to be able to use much in the means of an alternative OS anyways. At least not a fully functional alternative OS. ~Jeff |
| lcafiero Jan 04, 2012 5:28 PM EDT |
Ah, I see what you're saying now, Jeff. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. |
| JaseP Jan 04, 2012 6:25 PM EDT |
If you can get the binaries for the driver, what's the problem?!?! Obviously, certain devices will have binary snippets, but if you get access to them, you can still change other things in the OS... I see the problem of proprietary drivers as more of a problem when what you are looking to do is change software platforms, or if you want a Stallman-esqe completely open source computer. But the bootloader, that's a real big issue, if you'd like to alter the OS... |
| mbaehrlxer Jan 05, 2012 12:28 AM EDT |
in order to change the drivers you need an unlocked bootloader in the first place. how can you even develop a free driver if you can't get into the device because the bootloader is locked? greetings, eMBee. |
| Jeff91 Jan 05, 2012 1:50 AM EDT |
You are displaying my point exactly mbaehrlxer - why should the standard be that the boot loader needs to be open, but I need to create my own open driver? Why shouldn't the drivers be open as well as the boot loader? Why is the anger only over the boot loader being locked and not the drivers? ~Jeff |
| tuxchick Jan 05, 2012 2:08 AM EDT |
Jeff91, nobody can write a whole freaking book in every article. Bootloaders and drivers are separate topics. |
| JaseP Jan 05, 2012 2:24 AM EDT |
Keep in mind that drivers often require firmware binary snippets in order to run... firmware dumped to the chipset to make drivers function properly. |
| Jeff91 Jan 05, 2012 3:11 AM EDT |
Tuxchick How is simply stating we want the entire device to be open instead of just the boot loader adding a "whole freaking book" to an article? ~Jeff |
| mbaehrlxer Jan 05, 2012 5:01 AM EDT |
jeff91: the article is about unlocking the bootloader, not about opening the source.
without an unlocked bootloader you have no chance to get your free drivers into the phone even if the drivers already existed. therefore an unlocked bootloader is a precondition to even start thinking about free drivers. if you have free software drivers but a locked bootloader you can do nothing (except trying to break into the phone) with an unlocked bootloader but no source for drivers you can start writing drivers. greetings, eMBee. |
| Jeff91 Jan 05, 2012 7:23 AM EDT |
Oh OK - I made the mistake thinking all this fuss was about software freedom. ~Jeff |
| tuxchick Jan 05, 2012 12:01 PM EDT |
I noticed it didn't address world hunger, child slavery, or the mistreatment of the Andorians on Romulus V either. |
| mbaehrlxer Jan 05, 2012 1:19 PM EDT |
this is about software freedom. have you noticed how your android phone contains GPL code but you can't change it because the bootloader is locked? without an unlocked bootloader all these linux kernel sources are useless because you can't get a different kernel into the device. this is what TIVO did, and what led to the creation of the GPLv3... greetings, eMBee. |
| lcafiero Jan 05, 2012 1:35 PM EDT |
It is about software freedom, Jeff91, and if software freedom were fruit, bootloaders would be apples and drivers would be oranges. |
| Jeff91 Jan 05, 2012 2:43 PM EDT |
You see I don't think they are so much Apples and Oranges Icafiero - They both have to do with how functional you can make said device with an alternative operating system. @Mbaehrlxer I don't own Android devices exactly because of issues like this. I won't invest in one until we have a company release such a device that is more open than all the existing cr@p. @TuxChick Please troll elsewhere. ~Jeff |
| lcafiero Jan 05, 2012 3:24 PM EDT |
This is only an observation, but I think that the issue of closed drivers has been one for quite some time -- a issue that needs to be changed. The issue of locked bootloaders seems to be one that is more immediate since it's part of a more immediate problem. To say, "You want hardware that gives you the freedom to do what you want with it buy x86 plain and simple" or whatever you said earlier, pretty much flies in the face of advocating software/hardware freedom for all on any platform, Jeff91. So it's a little hard to follow what you're saying. Personally, were I a lead developer of a growing distro, I'd think I'd want my message to be a little more clear. I'd also be a lot more diplomatic and flexible with those I disagree with, since not only do I represent myself but the distro which I lead. It's a pity fewt has yet to learn that lesson. Also, tuxchick makes some valid points, Jeff91. If you want to rant, that's fine. But you might want to remember that not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy and not everyone who agrees with you is your friend. |
| flufferbeer Jan 05, 2012 4:08 PM EDT |
+1 lcafiero I think it'd be IMMENSELY entertaining for Jeff91 and khess to get into a passionate discussion /slash/ rant here just about almost anything technical (even NON-technical!) 2c |
| skelband Jan 05, 2012 4:17 PM EDT |
I don't really understand what this heated argument is all about. Closed source drivers are a big problem, particularly on ARM. Locked and encrypted boot loaders are already a big problem on phones and tablets and elsewhere. This UEFI issue would have been set to make the situation even worse on platforms where we do not expect to see it had it not been for all the public wailing about the subject. Battling proprietary lockout on devices is a constant battle on many fronts. I don't think one is more relevant than any other. They're all important. |
| lcafiero Jan 05, 2012 4:59 PM EDT |
It's not as much an argument as it is one of the all-too-common (and unfortunate) "I'm-more-right-than-you" discussions that permeate FOSS -- one that seems to have degenerated into something it shouldn't have. |
| Jeff91 Jan 05, 2012 5:18 PM EDT |
My entire point was locked boot loaders are an equally troubling issue to closed source drivers powering ARM devices. My issue is that no one seems to care about the drivers, but every time someone locks a boot loader there are a million postings around the web about it. My first statement was very clear and I have not deviated from this point. x86 hardware offers freedom that no ARM devices currently do - that was the idea behind my last statement. If this issue really is about software freedom (which is should be) then it is not writing an entire book to add a mention about piles of closed source drivers. It is an issue that is just as rampant as locking boot loaders (even more so really) and is also about software freedom. Where in any of my posts here has my message been inconsistent and not following the same flow of logic? I'm not trying to start a fight or create enemies - I'm simply trying to have a discussion. If you don't agree with my point that is FINE, but if you are going to say so - please provide a logical means of why you don't agree. ~Jeff |
| JaseP Jan 05, 2012 5:32 PM EDT |
I don't know of many drivers for ARM devices that aren't supported. Most could be obtained in the Android kernel sources. Since most drivers would be for wifi and Bluetooth chipsets, maybe a few touch controllers, you'd find them in the source tree... The only things you wouldn't would be the graphics drivers for PowerVR chipsets, and stuff like that. Most everything else would likely hook into the kernel, and so would have to be GPL'd. |
| Fettoosh Jan 05, 2012 5:39 PM EDT |
Quoting: If you don't agree with my point that is FINE, but if you are going to say so - please provide a logical means of why you don't agree. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with your general point, I think what they disagree with is what is more important and crucial to FOSS. Both boot loaders & drivers are important but, bootloader are more so since they are the main gate to the hardware (house) and drivers are inside doors to the various components & peripherals (rooms). |
| skelband Jan 05, 2012 6:48 PM EDT |
It seems pretty clear that the UEFI issue is a more immediate concern for a lot more people. Installing Linux or your alternative preferred Windows onto a desktop is something that people are more likely to do than attempting to program an ARM device on an embedded system. I guess that is why the story has more prominence at the moment, that and the fact that the news is fresher in the public's perception. Open source ARM device drivers are important, but they directly affect far fewer people in an immediate way. |
| Jeff91 Jan 05, 2012 7:01 PM EDT |
JaseP if you know of an ARM device (tablet preferred) that has fully GPU/Wifi/Audio under a standard Linux distribution please let me know. I've been looking for awhile and worked on more than a few and have yet to find one. ~Jeff |
| tuxchick Jan 05, 2012 7:02 PM EDT |
It's a funny thing, Jeff, most journalists would consider your original comment as a troll, a very boring, done-to-death troll. It's a news story about ASUS unlocking their bootloader, and no matter how long you hold your breath or how purple you turn, not mentioning software freedom doesn't invalidate the story. There are thousands of stories that have been published over the years on closed and open drivers, but locked bootloaders are a recent phenomenon. I suggest that you get glad on the same horse you got mad on. |
| lcafiero Jan 05, 2012 7:30 PM EDT |
Jeff91 wrote:My entire point was locked boot loaders are an equally troubling issue to closed source drivers powering ARM devices. My issue is that no one seems to care about the drivers, but every time someone locks a boot loader there are a million postings around the web about it. Sorry, but I have to call shenanigans here. You didn't make this point, at least clearly, until this statement. Who says we don't care about drivers? We do, and while they might be equally "troubling," clearly the bootloader issue is more important than drivers. I think Fettoosh makes the point in the posting above: If we can't get into the house, having the keys to any or all the doors inside is pretty much moot. Jeff91 wrote:Where in any of my posts here has my message been inconsistent and not following the same flow of logic? From the outset? Maybe about the time when I asked you for clarification when you made what I thought was either an incredibly inconsistent or an enormously nebulous statement? Yeah, that's it. I even asked for a clarification, which you gave, and I thanked you and then -- ahem -- agreed with you that it was an important issue. Jeff91 wrote:If you don't agree with my point that is FINE, but if you are going to say so - please provide a logical means of why you don't agree. Fettoosh is right again: I'm not disagreeing that opening closed drivers isn't an important issue -- I don't think anyone is. I even made the point that both are important in the free software "fruit" realm -- the apples and oranges analogy with which you disagreed. So I think that rather than being on the defensive, you might want to form some sort of synthesis to what was being debated here instead of assuming that you're more right than those you think you "disagree" with. [And tuxchick wasn't trolling -- I think you owe her an apology.] |
| Jeff91 Jan 05, 2012 7:33 PM EDT |
Yes Tuxchick - but ARM devices are a very recent development and the fact that they are a "system on a chip" makes a lack of open source drivers even a bigger critical issue. There are piles of articles written about the issue of closed source drivers as related to systems on a chip/ARM devices? Because I haven't see any recently. It wasn't a comment on this article specifically, but again on the fact that no one seems to care about the lack of functionality of alternative systems on ARM systems. This article is about an ARM system, so it is semi-related. Yes, maybe the thread was post in the wrong section and the title was a poor choice. But the issue I am talking about is a very serious issue. ~Jeff |
| Jeff91 Jan 05, 2012 7:37 PM EDT |
"You know what you should also be complaining about? All the closed source drivers that power your ARM devices." And then "even with an unlocked boot loader you aren't going to be able to use much in the means of an alternative OS anyways" (because of the closed source drivers - sorry if that wasn't clear) Then "both have to do with how functional you can make said device with an alternative operating system" (both meaning boot loader and drivers) Sorry, I've read and re-read what I posted. They all follow the same idea - closed source drivers are a huge issue on the ARM platform. "I noticed it didn't address world hunger, child slavery, or the mistreatment of the Andorians on Romulus V either." That is a completely off the wall comment. I didn't say everyone, needs to address everything in every post. I simply said the issue of drivers should be address at least as much as the issue of boot loaders. Two technology topics related to the same type of hardware. ~Jeff |
| skelband Jan 05, 2012 8:52 PM EDT |
@Jeff91: I think you are confusing what is important to you with what is important to everyone else. Believe it or not, most other people couldn't give a rat's arse about open source ARM drivers, but they do care (at least most people reading this resource) that they can install their OS of choice on their desktop. Now I know that the driver support is in some way linked to to options of what OSes will actually run on your hardware, but mainly the issue is about running Linux on x86-based desktop hardware. Secondly, as a more general point, the issue of closed source drivers is mostly a question of manufacturer apathy. Some are secretive about their code but I think most just can't be bothered catering for the free software movement. If it doesn't increase their bottom line, then it is not a high priority for them. The outcry about the UEFI issue is a feeling that we've been there before with the likes of Microsoft in that they are likely to make positive efforts to lock the hardware down to lock people into Windows and indeed that particular OEM version of it. I think the outcry is justified. We know enough about Microsoft's history to realise that this is just the kind of thing that they get up to behind closed doors with their back-room deals with the big box shifters. Any good news on this front from a big-name supplier of x86 is good news as far as I'm concerned. |
| Koriel Jan 05, 2012 9:30 PM EDT |
If any freedom lovers would like to donate an android phone to me that would be nice, i certainly can't afford one even just to whine about it :) |
| mbaehrlxer Jan 05, 2012 11:09 PM EDT |
jeff91: perhaps the geeksphone is of interest to you? it comes unlocked, but unfortunately the default install does include nonfree software. i don't know about non-free drivers though. sorry koriel, as jeff91 noted, none of the available phones are free enough to not make giving one to you a heresy. (the openmoko and potentially the geeksphone would be an exception :-) greetings, eMBee. |
| JaseP Jan 06, 2012 11:11 AM EDT |
Quoting: JaseP if you know of an ARM device (tablet preferred) that has fully GPU/Wifi/Audio under a standard Linux distribution please let me know. @Jeff: OK, Jeff, you realize that you're being just a little disingenuous with that request, considering I stated GPU considerations aside, right?!?! I challenge you to find an X86or RISC system, other than the 900Mhz netbook that Stallman uses, that is 100% free of any proprietary binary snippets, etc. Any device that has Bluetooth support will include closed drivers, or at least binary firmware accessed by open source shims. It's an unfortunate reality. I don't own a single system that doesn't load at least one piece of proprietary firmware. And, I only have ONE system that runs any M$ OSes (ironically, one of the few that came with Linux pre-installed), and that only for cases where I have to flash firmware on some embedded device. Come to think of it,... The system that Stallman uses may meet your requirements, ... It possibly is a relative of ARM architecture ... Although, I don't know that as a fact. |
| mbaehrlxer Jan 06, 2012 1:10 PM EDT |
JaseP: stallmans laptop has a loongson cpu, which is a mipsel clone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson greetings, eMBee. |
| Jeff91 Jan 06, 2012 1:56 PM EDT |
JaseP At least our x86 systems function on a variety of Operating Systems though. ARM systems do not. ~Jeff |
| caitlyn Jan 06, 2012 4:07 PM EDT |
Who makes a x86 SmartPhone, Jeff? I'm eagerly awaiting your recommendation. Might as well throw in a few tablet recommendations too. |
| JaseP Jan 06, 2012 4:24 PM EDT |
Push comes to shove, you can always boot an ARM system with an Android kernel & then run a chroot to another kernel & system. Oh, and the Nokia N900 will run Maemo, Meego & Android ... Plus you can run a Ubuntu variant in a chroot scenario, as indicated above (plus, custom kernels exist for it as well). By the way,... The compal MIDs were/are x86 devices with phone capabilities ... They are/were available rebranded as Aigo & Gigabyte devices... Maybe a couple others. |
| Fettoosh Jan 06, 2012 4:39 PM EDT |
Quoting:Might as well throw in a few tablet recommendations too. I am not sure about x86 SmartPhone, but tablets is a different story. WeTab, is expensive and is not yet available in The US. http://wetab.mobi/en/shop/ But it is available on Amazon Europe. http://www.amazon.de/WeTab-Zoll-Tablet-PC-Bluetooth-Wi-Fi/dp... |
| JaseP Jan 06, 2012 5:16 PM EDT |
The WeTab is just a rebranded machine. I can't remember if is was a Compal machine, or someone else's. MS used to sell the Win7 version on their website. Someone else sells them in Canada (or did). It was too pricy for the specs, which were similar to the Dell Inspiron Duo, minus the Duo's flipscreen and keyboard. I ultimately ended up with the Duo. The x86 "phone" I refered to was the Compal MID, which had also been rebranded as the Aigo 8800 series, if I remember right. They may still be available, but are now under powered and rely on the GMA500, with its PowerVR innards... Meaning, it'll take work to get it going under A modern X server. |
| caitlyn Jan 06, 2012 8:48 PM EDT |
Thank you for making my point. Except for a few obscure devices you're smartphones and tablets have ARM processors, as do low end netbooks. Instead of dismissing the popular hardware, how about more people doing things like getting the ARM builds of Debian and Slackware to work with at least the tablets and the netbooks. That would seem to be a more positive direction to explore. For those of us who are pragmatists and really not wedded to the RMS/FSF philosophy, well... we're going to use what works well. My next phone will probably be an Android phone. At the moment I still have a decidedly proprietary Crackberry that still serves my needs well. |
| Jeff91 Jan 07, 2012 4:34 AM EDT |
Caitlyn - I admire your wanting to get Debian ARM running on these different devices. You talk to me when you have done so. My frustration towards the ARM platform stems from trying to do just this. Over a half a dozen ARM systems later I have yet to be able to get Debian fully running on a device it didn't come pre-installed on. Closed source firmware is always the bottle neck that companies have no interest in helping us over come. The nature of ARM "system in a chip" and the fact that a good deal of ARM systems are so different make writing open source drivers impractical - we would need different drivers for almost every device! Meaning by the time we got a decent driver working the hardware would be dated odds are. Yes ARM is being used a lot and it is a platform I would like to work on - but the support just isn't there and companies making the hardware don't seem to have any interest in getting the support there. Which I can almost see to a point, companies just want to make money. They don't see any extra funds by letting people install different OSes on their hardware. It sucks, but really thats the way it is. ~Jeff |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!