36
GNU Linux-libre 6.18 Neuters More Functionality Due To Blobs With Intel Xe, NVIDIA Nova (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Following yesterday's Linux 6.18 kernel release, GNU Linux-libre 6.18-gnu is out today as the latest release of this free software purist kernel that will drop/block drivers from loading microcode/firmware considered non-free-software and other restrictions in the name of not pushing binary blobs even when needed for hardware support/functionality on otherwise open-source drivers.

With Linux 6.18 there are more upstream kernel drivers dependent upon binary-only firmware/microcode. Among the drivers called out this cycle are the open-source NVIDIA Nova-Core Rust driver as well as the modern Intel Xe driver. Nova-Core is exclusively designed around the NVIDIA GPU System Processor (GSP) usage and thus without its firmware the driver is inoperable. Similarly, with the newer Intel Xe driver depending upon the GuC micro-controller without its firmware the support is also rendered useless.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

The line is basically programmability. If a device runs "firmware" that can't be changed, that's really just a part of the design of the hardware you bought, so the fact that you can't see or modify the source code is irrelevant- even if you could, it wouldn't give you any more control over the hardware. If it runs firmware that can be changed, it's a programmable computer, and by running proprietary firmware, you're giving up control you would otherwise have over your computer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I think you missed the point. Imagine 2 devices, device A has a chip with flash memory that contains a binary blob with firmware. Device B doesn't have built-in flash storage so it requires the driver to load the same binary blob during boot. Both devices are reprogrammable and both contain the same closed source firmware. However device A would be allowed but device B would not. From my point of view they are the same device. The fact that you don't know how to reprogram device A doesn't make it more or less proprietary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago*

    The very silly argument the FSF is trying to make is that device A is not programmable because the firmware is baked into the HW effectively making it part of the HW rather than a separate entity. Therefore it's a HW limitation and not proprietary software. Device B on the other hand has proprietary software uploaded to it which is not to be allowed under any circumstances and therefore must be neutered. I call it silly because as you so rightfully point out, the firmware blob could be literally the same exact blob, just stored differently

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Exactly. It is about programmability. And that is dumb.

    Imagine you have a piece of hardware that is not programmable. The FSF says that hardware is fine. Buy the shit out it and “be free” apparently.

    Version 2 of that hardware is released with the new feature that the firmware is upgradable. Of course, only closed firmware updates are available initially. According to the FSF, this programmable hardware must now be avoided. Keep buying the original “more free” version that cannot be programmed.

    And if you do have hardware version 2, the FSF says you should at least never update your firmware. Nevermind new features. Security fixes are to be avoided. Because the baked in firmware is more free than the firmware update. It is not that you are not using closed firmware. Of course you are. But you did not change it. So that is better?

    It is total nonsense.

    If there was a Free Hardware Foundation, a device whose hardware was programmable and whose firmware could be upgraded would clearly be seen as superior to one that was completely closed. It is definitely more open, “more free” hardware even if only closed firmware is available. The hardware is obviously more free. Self-evidently.

    But the FSF position is that this “more free” hardware is less free than fully closed options when only closed firmware exists. There is no way for that to make sense unless you move “firmware” into the software bucket and completely ignore the concept of hardware all together. Sorry, but that is dumb.

    It is also a good way to roadblock progress towards open hardware. Please stop.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    An organization which exists exclusively to advocate for a type of program caring about programmability is not dumb. That seems... kinda obvious? They don't exist to rate the technical superiority or inferiority of hardware devices, they exist to advocate for the simple position that: if a device can be programmed, the user of that device ought to control the program on the device, not some company which happens to hold the copyright over the on-device program.

    And if you do have hardware version 2, the FSF says you should at least never update your firmware.

    Um... absolutely not? They say that running proprietary firmware represents an injustice (perpetrated by the copyright holders of the firmware, btw, not the user). Updating the firmware to free software would obviously be great in the eyes of the FSF; upgrading to proprietary firmware would be simply continuing the existing, unjust status quo. You appear to have completely made up this particular position.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent