They say that GNU is spreading misinformation and “stop getting info from charlatans”?
You must log in or register to comment.
You deleted your last post on a similar topic, which had some excellent discussion and comments, and now all of that good content for lemmy is gone.
Deleting posts is not great for the community.
As bad as reddit is, it does suck that a lot of people who left decided to wipe all their comments/posts too. Huge amount of useful data just gone.
Yes but millions were also providing that data for free until Reddit decided it was all theirs to control and monetize. Don’t blame the users.
Saying it sucks = blaming the users? Okay.
Saying “it sucks that they decided” sounds like blaming these users.
I really hope someday folks in the internet learn how to properly use quotation marks and why paraphrasing but adding quotation isn’t okay. Someday…
The thing is, I didn’t agree to sell my content for a 0% cut.
Yes, when you publicly posted things online.
Disney murder case type of legal bullshit vibes here
Reddit is trying to sell that data. I would like to sabotage that. Also, some of my activity on Reddit especially early on was quite toxic so I’d rather it be lost anyway.
Way to distract from otherwise good argument about firmware. Really dumb take. In case you think I’m being flippant, let me present an alternative blob:
GNU are striving for the ideal goal of fully open source hardware and software. Their statement correctly highlights the compromises of the reality of using proprietary hardware which requires proprietary firmware; compounded by the reality of oligopolies maintaining their market positions via proprietary software. Our take is that providing an otherwise open source OS within this reality is significantly better for people than letting full corporate control reign until open mobile hardware becomes practical and common, if it ever does.
deleted by creator
I’m afraid to ask this because I’m not a dev, but I have a fair amount of linux experience. Why is it that the ability to install Google Play Services on GrapheneOS makes it not FOSS/open source, while the ability to install Google Chrome (or any proprietary software, I guess) on Linux doesn’t make is non-FOSS/open source?
I’m not articulating that question very well, and I’m assuming I’m missing some key component, but they seem comparable to me, as a regular user. Is it something like the level of access that GPServices has to the kernel?
Unfortunately, the FSF isn’t against firmware blobs, only against those updatable by a user.
From their Respects Your Freedom requirements page.
However, there is one exception for secondary embedded processors. The exception applies to software delivered inside auxiliary and low-level processors and FPGAs, within which software installation is not intended after the user obtains the product. This can include, for instance, microcode inside a processor, firmware built into an I/O device, or the gate pattern of an FPGA. The software in such secondary processors does not count as product software.
This means that proprietary firmware flashed at the factory and impossible to replace gets a pass, while hardware with firmware updates through blobs is rejected. Important security fixes (CPU microcode) or stability improvements will be missing if you can’t update the firmware.
And thats why they advocate open hardware
Sure and that’s the ideal, but as it currently stands the FSF would rank hardware like this:
- Fully open source
- Proprietary flashed in factory and impossible to replace
- Proprietary and can be updated/replaced
This makes no sense for security, stability or ideological reasons.
I’m not a fan of GrapheneOS, but the point they bring up here is valid. There is already proprietary firmware on your computer. There’s no reason why you shouldn’t be updating it to protect yourself from serious exploits. The FSF takes an ideological stance rather than a practical one, unfortunately.
Except they also advocate using compute devices that only use blobless firmware
I think your question is answered by the thread you linked. Is there something in particular you don’t understand?
GNU/the FSF says that GrapheneOS does not qualify as free software (which is true, it’s not completely FLOSS as per the FSF’s definition—the linked GNU article classifies plenty of popular Linux distros we consider to be FOSS as non-free, btw, they’re not singling out Graphene), and GrapheneOS is saying they don’t want to fit the FSF’s definition of free software because it would mean a lack of security (which is also true; they need proprietary firmware updates from Google). The FSF has a strict definition of free software which a lot of software does not meet, and usually an entire operating system would only meet the FSF’s definition out of a deliberate, conscious, ideological decision to exclude all non-free software. In their article they even list Debian as a distro which no longer meets their standards, despite Debian being known for their strict policy around only including FOSS in their repos.
This is an instance of two different entities (GNU and GrapheneOS) having fundamentally different goals (one values a strict definition of free software at all costs, one values security at all costs). You are more than welcome to do things GNU’s way if you don’t like GrapheneOS’s way, or vice versa.
This is begging the question, there’s nothing confusing or incorrect about what GrapheneOS posted. GNU/FSF is a cult that has always been making their own arbitrary rules for what qualifies and what does not qualify as free software (I am not saying the OSI is any better in that regard, Raymond is a clown).
I highly suggest reading this mailing list thread where RMS fails to understand copyright law and thinks you can relicense permissive code to GPL, and refuses to call OpenBSD free because the ports system can be used to build a few pieces of non-free software, even though no parts of the ports tree itself are non-free (wait until he hears you can download Windows ISOs off of a web browser).
my god. Yeah, he’s technically correct, but he’s so self righteous about it. I think of PopOS, probably the best OS I’ve ever used. However when you open the shop, he would just pass out because they shock recommend discord and others.
But that’s what people want. If you open the shop and don’t see the discord app, people would be frustrated. It’s there because people use it. Hell I use it. But according to him even the act of just suggesting something closed source, even if people want it, is … “unethical”?
I’m not sure exactly. But I personally don’t like GNU because I think they have been embedded in a form of wishful thinking for far too long. Expecting that developers and manufacturers willingly relinquish their rights to their copyright for the benefit of others, regardless if they want to or not. And expecting that end users only seek out those kinds of systems as well. In total, providing everyone with free reign with minimal regard to consequences. And pushing away those that simply want to try and make the things only a little better.
For an organization primarily devoted to ensuring that software remains open, accessible, and modifiable, they sure do seem to like to bend over backwards. Looking directly at GrapheneOS, my personal thought would be the fact the goals of GNU tend to conflict with the goals of security (the FSF has actively spoken against the concept of Tivoization, or systems that use free software but are locked down by hardware restrictions)
They’re also horribly out of touch with the general public. And in some cases, simply too radical to be taken seriously. To name a few examples:
-
They have very little understanding of the actual public or anyone else outside of the tech field. Their Gift Guide is an absolute joke, suggesting adapters and old ThinkPads as gifts. With their most appetizing gift (a Vikings D8 Desktop computer) is literally mentioned as being out of stock. Suggesting you instead give, once again, a ThinkPad with Free software. Their only reasons for not using an actively manufactured and relatively modern (as in 3 generations ago) computer that are because of “restrictions to users freedoms” and “spyware” without very much definition aside from a few links (they’ve got much more to say about the computer than they what they believe in).
-
Their “preferred terminology”, lists a bunch of jargon they don’t like and their alternatives, making a lot of automatic presumptions of guilt. My personal favorite is “Internet of Stings”. As if projects like Home Assistant aren’t trying to improve the scene (though they’re presumably ignored because they’re also willing to connect with proprietary services)
TL;DR the GNU foundation is made up of a bunch of nerds who care more about messing with their computers than actually trying to do important things with them.
-
Graphene is against GNU ideals getting in the way of security, because as it turns out, they do. FSF’s definition of “ok” and “not ok” firmware blobs is bogus anyway.
Edit: for all the people who don’t get this: THE FSF IS FUCKING OKAY WITH PROPRIETARY FIRMWARE BLOBS, but only if they are in a separate (usually user-inaccessible) storage chip and if you don’t update it; they only deem that morally ok, yet it’d be the same as loading the blobs from the disk (which makes devices MUCH SAFER to update, you don’t risk a brick). They get in the way of security by abusing the trust y’all give them, cuz thank god nobody who does embedded dev takes their opinions seriously anyway. Also, you’re not giving up “A bit of security”, you’re giving up fucking microcode updates, the ones that patch well-known vulnerabilities that allow webpages to gain root access. FFS.
FSF does not get in the way of security. FSF believes source code should be publicly available in order to even assume the software is secure or private. In a perfect world that would be nice. But in the real world, proprietary blobs are required to make the hardware functional. As long as OEMs are removed about open sourcing the firmwares, both GrapheneOS and GNU are right in their own way.
Because there is nothing that exists today that is completely, from head-to-tail, open source. Being allowed and able to install closed source software does not make an open ecosystem suddenly closed.
Plenty of Linux systems today rely on binary blobs to make hardware work. Plenty of software can run on an open source ecosystem while itself being closed source.
Richard Stallman is a toe-booger eating weirdo looking for attention.
