The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

français
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

Peter Hessler
this has been discussed ad-nauseam, please search the archives.

(ps: do not respond to this, we are not interested in having this
discussion again)


On 2015 Nov 27 (Fri) at 08:33:00 -0700 (-0700), fran??ais wrote:
:The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that:
:
:"FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree
:programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree
:firmware blobs.
:
:Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called
:???blobs???,
:and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term ???blob??? means
:something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD
:distributions (called ???projects??? by BSD developers) have the policy of
:not
:including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when the
:developers say these distributions ???contain no blobs???, it causes a
:misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs.
:
:No BSD distribution has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware
:that might be loaded even by free drivers."
:
:The affirmations of FSF that I cited above are falses?
:
:With spying revelations, it is well-known that non-free firmware can contain
:backdoors. ( just one recent example:
:http://www.wired.com/2015/02/nsa-firmware-hacking/ )
:
:I would feel a lot safer if the kernel and packages were fully free,
:containing no non-free drivers nor non-free "firmware".

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

Michael McConville-3
In reply to this post by français
Drivers run on the CPU, firmware runs on the peripheral device (e.g. the
network card or hard drive). BSDs reject driver blobs because they run
with the same privilege and in the same address space as the rest of the
kernel. Because of this, they can meddle with or corrupt the kernel.

Before asking questions like this in the future:

 1. Do more research
 2. Don't use such inflammatory phrasing

français wrote:

> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that:
>
> "FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree
> programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree
> firmware blobs.
>
> Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called
> “blobs”,
> and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term “blob” means
> something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD
> distributions (called “projects” by BSD developers) have the policy of
> not
> including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when the
> developers say these distributions “contain no blobs”, it causes a
> misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs.
>
> No BSD distribution has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware
> that might be loaded even by free drivers."
>
> The affirmations of FSF that I cited above are falses?
>
> With spying revelations, it is well-known that non-free firmware can contain
> backdoors. ( just one recent example:
> http://www.wired.com/2015/02/nsa-firmware-hacking/ )
>
> I would feel a lot safer if the kernel and packages were fully free,
> containing no non-free drivers nor non-free "firmware".

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

Peter Nicolai Mathias Hansteen
In reply to this post by français
On 11/27/15 16:33, français wrote:
> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that:
>
> "FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree
> programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree
> firmware blobs.

The FSF should have access to people who could do a bit of fact
checking, but it's possible they don't actually care all that much about
accuracy. The three projects all have their own approach to this
problem, and with minimal search effort you or the FSF would have been
able to find complete descriptions of how OpenBSD at least handles the
situation.

Go search the archives, nothing much has changed since the first time
this issue came up on misc. And I remember this actually being a topic
of one of Theo's presentations and possibly others. Seek and you shall find.

--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/
"Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

Theo de Raadt
In reply to this post by français
> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that:
>
> "FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree
> programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree
> firmware blobs.
 

> Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called
> "blobs" and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term "blob" means
> something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD
> distributions (called "projects" by BSD developers) have the policy of
> not including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when the
> developers say these distributions "contain no blobs", it causes a
> misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs.
>
> No BSD distribution has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware
> that might be loaded even by free drivers."

GNU software contains large volumes of source code to ensure their
code runs on Windows and other proprietary platforms.

Large means nearly a hundred thousand lines of #ifdef spaghetti spread
throughout their code base, which would otherwise not be there.  If
the spaghetti wasn't there, the code quality would almost assuredly
be higher for everyone else on free software.  Instead, the GNU project
insists that support for Windows and other commercial systems remain,
requiring all source code contributors to work around that practice,
and continue maintainance.

As we learned from OpenSSL in the last two years, #ifdef support for
dated commercial platforms comes with great risk, and rarely any
benefit.

We call that hypocrisy:

    the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to
    which one's own behavior does not conform"

> The affirmations of FSF that I cited above are falses?

It is true RMS said the above.  But it is also true the FSF does not
follow that same guidance to the full extent possible regarding their
own software.

And there is another mistake in the FSF guidance you quoted.  Red Hat
Debian, Ubuntu, and most other Linux distributions.  That's called not
pissing off your financial contribution base.

Apparently we are not allowed to have free choice as to how we make
software available, but must follow guidance of some external entity?

RMS has an axe to grind -- that is the real truth you are hunting for.

> With spying revelations, it is well-known that non-free firmware can contain
> backdoors. ( just one recent example:
> http://www.wired.com/2015/02/nsa-firmware-hacking/ )
>
> I would feel a lot safer if the kernel and packages were fully free,
> containing no non-free drivers nor non-free "firmware".

Nice tie in.  Unfortunately, beggars can't be choosers.  You should
run some other software then.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

français
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

Peter Nicolai Mathias Hansteen
On 11/27/15 17:32, français wrote:
> I wanted ask the following:
>
> The FSF say the true about *BSD when say that *BSD include instructions for
> obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system?

Please start with http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39 (the OpenBSD 3.9
theme song), and look at the date on http://www.openbsd.org/39.html -
that's a good time frame (plus or minus a few months) to find the
answers to your questions in mailing list archives. Almost ten years
later, the situation isn't all that different, and the OpenBSD approach
certainly hasn't changed.

Now will you please do a bit of reading?

HTH, HAND
--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/
"Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

français
In reply to this post by Theo de Raadt
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

bofh-6
Do you understand your question has been answered over and over again, and
is not relevant here?

Why do you continue by asking about blobs in FreeBSD?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

Giancarlo Razzolini-3
Em 27-11-2015 18:35, bofh escreveu:
> Why do you continue by asking about blobs in FreeBSD?
Troll Detected. Troll Fed. End of Thread.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

David Coppa
In reply to this post by bofh-6
Il 27/nov/2015 21:43, "bofh" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> Do you understand your question has been answered over and over again, and
> is not relevant here?
>
> Why do you continue by asking about blobs in FreeBSD?
>

Because he's a troll.

Stop feeding him, please.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

Eduardo Meyer
In reply to this post by bofh-6
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM, bofh <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Do you understand your question has been answered over and over again, and
> is not relevant here?
>
> Why do you continue by asking about blobs in FreeBSD?
>

My guess is, he has a Nero syndrom and is just trying to light a fire, but
nobody other than Theo seem to be patient enough or likely wanting to to
bring up some gas.

Dear français, respectfully, you should ask FreeBSD related stuff like that
on FreeBSD's misc and should ask IBM, Red Hat and Canonical (or any any
other relevant Linux system, including Google's) how acurate this statement
looks nowadays. You would get a much more interesting discussion, but
please ask it in the proper lists, individually.

--
===========
Eduardo Meyer
pessoal: [hidden email]
profissional: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

Eric Furman-3
In reply to this post by français
Pen and paper and inconspicuous drop spots.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 10:33 AM, français wrote:

> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that:
>
> "FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining
> nonfree
> programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include
> nonfree
> firmware blobs.
>
> Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called
> “blobs”,
> and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term “blob” means
> something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD
> distributions (called “projects” by BSD developers) have the policy of
> not
> including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when
> the
> developers say these distributions “contain no blobs”, it causes a
> misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs.
>
> No BSD distribution has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware
> that might be loaded even by free drivers."
>
> The affirmations of FSF that I cited above are falses?
>
> With spying revelations, it is well-known that non-free firmware can
> contain
> backdoors. ( just one recent example:
> http://www.wired.com/2015/02/nsa-firmware-hacking/ )
>
> I would feel a lot safer if the kernel and packages were fully free,
> containing no non-free drivers nor non-free "firmware".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
>
http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/The-kernels-of-BSD-include-nonfree-
> firmware-blobs-tp283900.html
> Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

Stuart Henderson
In reply to this post by Michael McConville-3
On 2015-11-27, Michael McConville <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Before asking questions like this in the future:
>
>  1. Do more research
>  2. Don't use such inflammatory phrasing

That's the whole point of the post though.

https://marc.info/?a=144511325400001&r=1&w=2

2015-11-27  The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?   openbsd-m
2015-11-23  Who teach the true message about the true free softwa openbsd-m
2015-11-19  Whats are the problems caused by licences that are no openbsd-m
2015-11-14  Why OpenBSD uses monolithic kernel?                   openbsd-t
2015-11-12  What is the current state financial of NetBSD?        netbsd-us
2015-11-11  GUI is for wimps second the currently opinion of hard openbsd-m
2015-11-03  =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_The_OpenBSD_developers_approve_=E2=80=9 openbsd-m
2015-10-30  =?UTF-8?Q?The_OpenBSD_developers_approve_=E2=80=9Cop? openbsd-m
2015-10-17  Because Theo and various users told them that the pro openbsd-m

https://marc.info/?a=140224970600003&r=1&w=2

2015-11-14  Re: What is the current state financial of NetBSD?    netbsd-us
2015-10-17  [OFF-TOPIC] Because Theo and various users told them  freebsd-q
2015-07-15  The IXP of Ashburn in Commonwealth of Virginia, LAX o freebsd-h
2015-07-12  [OFF-TOPIC] The that are IXP of Ashburn in Virginia,  freebsd-q
2015-06-11  [Python-Dev] What were the complaints of binary code  python-de
2014-12-19  [OFF-TOPIC] A real programmer would not stoop to wast freebsd-h
2014-11-29  Second all the authors of references about computers  freebsd-q
2014-11-22  =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_A_FreeBSD_developer_told_me_via_priva freebsd-q
2014-11-21  =?UTF-8?Q?A_FreeBSD_developer_told_me_via_private_mes freebsd-q
2014-11-21  This topic is mainly for developers of FreeBSD that d freebsd-h
2014-11-04  [9fans] [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossible wri 9fans    
2014-11-03  [Python-Dev] [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossibl python-de
2014-10-30  What are the countries that have the laws that make i freebsd-q
2014-10-20  How the DragonflyBSD developers solve problems that a dragonfly
2014-10-20  [9fans] How the Plan9 developers solve problems that  9fans    
2014-10-18  Is true that Microsoft doesn't use products Microsoft freebsd-q
2014-10-11  What is the philosophy of FreeBSD about the licenses? freebsd-q
2014-10-07  [9fans] [OFF-TOPIC] For most programmers, it is fooli 9fans    
2014-10-06  For most programmers, it is foolish currently develop debian-de
2014-09-15  What are the official opinions of the developers abou linux-ker
2014-09-15  It is foolish develop currently to code in binary, he redhat-de
2014-09-10  The coding in binary code and assembly are necessary  fedora-de
2014-09-10  The coding in binary code and assembly is necessary c ubuntu-de
2014-09-09  The developers of Debian Linux think there was no poi debian-de
2014-09-07  [haiku-development] Re: Why not C bindings?           haiku-dev
2014-09-05  [haiku-development] 'unsubscribe'                     haiku-dev
2014-09-03  The coding in binary and assembly are currently neede dragonfly
2014-08-20  [9fans] The developers of Plan9 think there was no po 9fans    
2014-08-12  The use of C language is avoided in DragonflyBSD deve dragonfly
2014-08-12  The use of C language is avoided in FreeBSD developme freebsd-h
2014-07-09  Because the government of EUA finances BSD communitie freebsd-q
2014-06-22  That was the reason I post old news, for example, new freebsd-q
2014-06-10  NetBSD is sucks?                                      freebsd-q
2014-06-08  The binary code is used in development of projects ba freebsd-q

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jclPWidTfak

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs?

français
In reply to this post by Eduardo Meyer
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.