You are not logged in.

#26 2015-11-22 23:48:19

Leonid.I
Member
From: Aethyr
Registered: 2009-03-22
Posts: 999

Re: Free Software Purity

Mostly agreed, but...

ewaller wrote:

Closed Blob under your control...

This makes no sense.

ewaller wrote:

Design documents to create blob: No.   Especially where I have any legal liability.

From my (scientist's) perspective, hiding design docs and, in general, research behind the product is a sign that someone is doing something nasty and said someone is not to be trusted...

Last edited by Leonid.I (2015-11-22 23:49:14)


Arch Linux is more than just GNU/Linux -- it's an adventure
pkill -9 systemd

Offline

#27 2015-11-22 23:50:04

ewaller
Administrator
From: Pasadena, CA
Registered: 2009-07-13
Posts: 19,740

Re: Free Software Purity

Fine, and fine.

Edit:  So, what hardware is it you use?

Last edited by ewaller (2015-11-22 23:55:48)


Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature -- Michael Faraday
Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine. -- Alan Turing
---
How to Ask Questions the Smart Way

Offline

#28 2015-11-23 13:28:21

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 6,275

Re: Free Software Purity

It's a matter of trust, ewaller. If I cannot trust hardware manufacturers due to a countries laws or political effects on technology, then I cannot recommend buying hardware from such a country.

Example: If the former HP CEO Carly Fiorina can brag about rerouting server shipments to the  NSA to build a "controversial" system to spy on US citizen without any backlash whatsoever from the American IT world, then I wonder what other IT companies in that jurisdiction would do similar things. You may or may not be aware of this, but the USA has lost the status of "a safe place for our data" in the EU, not only on paper but also in the minds of people. This is even more funny, when the German chancellor announces, that our private data is the commodity of the future and that we cannot get data privacy out of hand, while her coalition partner bloviates, that data security is a problem, because privacy is not compatible with the business model "Big Data" and Germany WILL be left behind, if we keep this privacy talk up. That means, while the USA isn't a safe harbor for our data anymore, Germany isn't a safe country of origin anyway.

Now comes the big question: How can I be sure, the company I work with is one of the good guys? Let's assume I trust the company you work for, because I know "ewaller is a nice guy, has always been" and "ewaller has access to the design papers", I therefore conclude, that you wouldn't sell me compromised hardware. This is the best case, really, and given how wonky the whole thing is, the best case isn't exactly very solid. It's usually some big company, I don't know anybody working in the right department, I can obtain information about their customer service quality and I can make test calls to see how they act in a commercial environment.

I currently specialize in quality management. Among other things, I validate software for companies in the medical sector. This includes not only EU standards, but also FDA approval for the US market. The only possible way to check the "off the shelf backdoor" security section in 90% of all cases is a written declaration and promises by the manufacturer. The entire system is based on the assumption, that there is always somebody to sue should things go wrong. While this is already the most wonky version of "safety", this only has a chance to work in a national environment. If a German agency bugs my devices without a court order, then I have some legal ways to defend my rights. If a US agency decides, that my rights are null and void, because I am not a US citizen anymore, then there is absolutely nothing I can do.

The "big companies building backdoors for government agencies" can be FUD or the truth, I don't know. The mere facts, that it has happened before, that it is possible and that it is so trivial, that the idea comes up so intuitively, are reason enough to exercise a healthy distrust.

Where do binary blobs fit there?

Offline

#29 2015-11-23 15:23:28

ewaller
Administrator
From: Pasadena, CA
Registered: 2009-07-13
Posts: 19,740

Re: Free Software Purity

Aye, there's the rub.  Once you get governments involved with espionage, all bets are off.  It is unfathomable to me  the damage done to US businesses by this nonsense.
Regardless, I guarantee my company won't be releasing design documents anytime soon.   I also am surprised that certificates of compliance are acceptable to the FDA. 
I think this describes the situation aptly.


Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature -- Michael Faraday
Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine. -- Alan Turing
---
How to Ask Questions the Smart Way

Offline

#30 2015-11-23 19:12:45

mpan
Member
Registered: 2012-08-01
Posts: 1,188
Website

Re: Free Software Purity

An interesting discussion on blobs goes here. But, since it's offtopic, can mods kindly split this thread into two to not pollute OP's area of interest? We're basically hijacking thread here.

Ewaller has touched a subject of safety regulations. One should point out that we're already talking about a world governed by different rules than the one we are living in, hence it's also possible to extend the vision to include governments that avoid imposing requirements that make no sense. I mean these, which try to control what people do with their own property, health or life — as long as it affects only them. Someone wants to modify their wireless mouse in a way that will interference with wireless keybord to the point it'll be unusable? Fine, it's his problem! The vendor should only be required to deliver a product that fulfills some conditions. What the customers does with it is his own choice. Requiring producers to make products that the user can't break on their will is a crazy idea.

Then the only safety regulations that are left are those which affect others (and I mean: may really affect — this doesn't include some hypothetical possibility of affecting). Antenna power is a good example. To greatly less extent, LiIon chargers, as broght by Ewaller. Car brakes etc. Now this can be still divided into two groups: those which are important and those which aren't. Let's look deeper. I do realize that modifying the WiFi router to have higher output will have detrimental effect on neighbours' wireless devices and if one manages somehow to push it over the limits most devices can handle, it can actually be harmful for their health. So the regulation that prohibits modifying firmware to prevent this seems to make sense, right? No.

First: making a similar modification is extremely easy even without firmware: just use a directional antenna. With parabolic sat TV antenna one can actually make the signal strong enough to seriously harm a person even on short exposure, not mentioning weaker versions (like damn cheap cantenna) which will surely interfere with nearby wireless communication.

Second: enormous amount of areas are already heavily polluted because lusers are always selecting the highest power output available. And, surprisingly, no one prohibits them from doing so. But it is seen as a problem if relatively few enthusiasts (average person do not mod their firmware, even more rarely in that particular way) will do the same. Even though it seems like now, when you can still do this quite easily, nearly none is trying.

Third: users are allowed to do a myriad of things that will harm others. The LiIon charger's code is critical? Well… but it can be used for unprotected 18650 cells. Or some cheap cells from China that tend to catch fire now and then as their normal mode of operation. You can buy a charger that has no firmware and uses only CV mode with poorly calibrated regulator — it's not even stopping charging after reaching maximum cell voltage! A driver may mod their brakes? Well… they're already allowed to drive a car, which is itself much, much more dangerous to others. In some countries vehicles are even allowed to enter crossing on red light when turning right — just based on driver's will! And such examples, unlike user modifications, are common and there is huge number of them for each device. Yet, in the zillion methods for causing danger, the one that is seen as problematic is one that includes software. Sense, WHERE IS THE SENSE?!

The only things left are these which may really need regulation. Car brakes, while not a very strong example, might be one. Fine. These are important cases. For this little group one could use blobby firmware that is simply walled off from the rest of the system in a separate chip with well defined, clear, verifiable signals. This introduces additional cost, I know. But being free was never free and in safety-critical systems such cost is neglible. And still, even for this group I'm not really fond of the idea. For me words "safe" and "secure" implicitly include "verified". And a closed system is, by definition, not verified and protected against being verified. Financial incentive is the sole pressure that secures closed "safety" and closed "security" and, while it's not the weakest of motivations, it's still a single rope that holds the ship in place.

Last edited by mpan (2015-11-23 19:25:29)


Sometimes I seem a bit harsh — don’t get offended too easily!

Offline

#31 2015-11-24 01:05:51

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 6,275

Re: Free Software Purity

Don't split, please. You cannot discuss reasons for and against binary blobs without talking aboutn regulations, capitalism and secrecy.

@ewaller: The FDA doesn't have people with the relevant know how to deal with such hardware. They are interested in your QM system, you need to be able to trace parts and report incidents. They are a government agency, slow and hard to change, they are always a decdae behind, when it comes to technology.

Offline

#32 2015-11-24 05:22:31

Leonid.I
Member
From: Aethyr
Registered: 2009-03-22
Posts: 999

Re: Free Software Purity

To me openness is really about quality... I bet many software (like Windows) as well hardware (like some ASUS motherboards I came across) products would be much better, if only the company would listen to users, but of course it doesn't because noone can provide a consistent bugreport so all you get is a polite secretary reply that "the issue will be considered". And no, specialized dev./early testing programs don't work because one needs real world every day testing.

To answer the question about which hardware I use: I usually get the cheapest ~$200 laptop because all of them suck anyways, and build my desktops around a server-class motherboard (supermicro or tyan) to avoid some of the drainbramage associated with even high-end workstation components. Again, this doesn't mean that I am liking or accept the closed blobs...


Arch Linux is more than just GNU/Linux -- it's an adventure
pkill -9 systemd

Offline

#33 2015-11-27 14:44:01

z0phi3l
Member
From: Waterbury CT
Registered: 2007-11-26
Posts: 278

Re: Free Software Purity

The problem is some, even here have taken the simple concept of using a computer and have morphed it into a quasi religious or "moral" thing, it is neither, and that's my issue with Stallman, he comes off as trying to be a Cult Leader instead of a technology leader, compare Stall man to Torvald, outside of the niche "hardcore FOSS" environment some choose to live in, who has some actual status in technology?  That's right Linus, why because he's about the code and stays out of all the petty peen swinging the rest have chosen to embrace

My view is to use what works and forget about childish or cultish stances in ANY OS/software I use

Offline

#34 2015-11-27 17:09:32

ewaller
Administrator
From: Pasadena, CA
Registered: 2009-07-13
Posts: 19,740

Re: Free Software Purity

z0phi3l wrote:

compare Stall man to Torvald, outside of the niche "hardcore FOSS" environment some choose to live in, who has some actual status in technology?  That's right Linus, why because he's about the code

To be fair, consider what RMS has written:  emacs, gcc, gdb , and a good chunk of the core utilities.  Richard may be passionate about free software, but it is wrong to say he has any lack of standing when it comes to development.  He is most definitely one of the giants on whose shoulders we stand.


Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature -- Michael Faraday
Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine. -- Alan Turing
---
How to Ask Questions the Smart Way

Offline

#35 2015-11-27 20:10:03

mpan
Member
Registered: 2012-08-01
Posts: 1,188
Website

Re: Free Software Purity

@z0phi3l
If for you the only thing that matters is short-term care about if your software works, why are you using libre or open source software at all? Why have you choosen a product that is in perpetual beta stage, breaks often and, most importantly, why did you stick to the distro that by design guarantees no stability? Take Apple's software. Even mediocre Windows apps produce better user experience than many of the top FLOSS ones. I see some contradiction here.

You have also called a stance of caring for something more than next 5 minutes "childish", basically insulting anyone, who takes such attitude — not only in libre and open source software world, not even in technology itself, but in any subject. Could you explain, why are you trying to depreciate them? You have also missed an important observation: it's children that don't care about their future — mature people generally tend to do the opposite. Yet you're inverting this fact in your nomenclature.

I can't tell about Torvalds, as I've never spoken to him, but when I talk with both "hardcore" libre software folks and open source guys, both camps have pretty much the same motivation. They're just choosing a different way of dealing with the problem. RMS-ish side is taking the role of opposition, attempting to use the idea of intellectual property to destroy that idea itself. The others have decided to educate and to eradicate the problem by infiltrating everything and diluting the system until it becomes naturally obsolete. But the reasons are the same. Of course they vary from person to person, but the distribution of motivations seems to be similar in both groups.


Sometimes I seem a bit harsh — don’t get offended too easily!

Offline

#36 2016-01-02 16:28:15

memory_leak
Member
Registered: 2015-03-02
Posts: 43

Re: Free Software Purity

Well, I see a firmware as a part of a product. Sure it is software, but I don't demand from BMW or Volvo to only use "standard" hardware components in their cars, why would I demand from Nvidia or ATI to only use opensource components? It would be very nice if they did, but let's face it, it is a competitive world and it is understandable they don't open their hardware that easy. I would prefer both Nvidia and ATI to open their drivers, but I don't think it will happen. So as long as closed source is mostly on the very low level, firmware, card bioses etc, I don't see it as a problem. For example nobody asks motherboard manufacturers to open source their bioses, why would you force graphic cards manufacturer to do that? It would be very nice if it happened, but I believe that chances are quite small. When it comes to other closed source products, well, I prefer open source. I also wish Firefox implementation was much better so I don't have to use Chrome on Linux either. Unfortunately Firefox is crashing or crawling under 10+ tabs pressure and same happens on both Windows and Linux. Also after few hours of use, regardless of number of tabs, I have to restart it because it gets into crawl speed mode, so I have got tired and switched to Chrome, but really wish I could use open source alternative (yes I know Chrome is open source too, but it is under heavy Google control).

Last edited by memory_leak (2016-01-02 16:28:55)

Offline

#37 2016-01-02 16:46:08

memory_leak
Member
Registered: 2015-03-02
Posts: 43

Re: Free Software Purity

mpan wrote:

@z0phi3l
Take Apple's software. Even mediocre Windows apps produce better user experience than many of the top FLOSS ones. I see some contradiction here.

I am not sure I will agree on that one. I prefer LInux actually for quality of user experience as well as for moral/ideological reasons.

Both of those reasons, especially quality of user experience is definitely a subjective and personal question, or so to say a taste question. For me lack of user configuarability and flexibility in Windows, and especially in Apple's crappy OS is a big turn off. But I am a guy who prefer Emacs to Visual Studio or Eclipse and even to music players and image viewers, I am also guy who runs window manager as main windowing system and who runs Emacs mostly in terminal. Being able to customize everything from shortcuts to window borders and how windows are placed on the screen is enormous plus for me. Personally I was prefering MWM (motif window manager) back in days of NT4 to Windows any day. Fast search and configurable shortcuts are key pieces for me. Apples Finder is ridicolously stupid piece of software which requires one to click around like a mad man. Maybe there are addons, I have no idea, I have ditched Apple since long time ago. Price (free) and flexibility is another big plus which ads to quality of experience in my eyes. I don't udnerstand all the fuss about start menu, or lack of it, in Windows 8, since I never cared about it anyway and for same reasons I don't care about Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Unity, LXDE or derivatives like Cannamon, Mate, or you name it. If I wanted to run a copy of Windows or OSX I would do that instead. I wish actually that open source desktop folks showed more conceptual independence and integrity than they do. Sure there will always be those who can't live without "start" menu, but both iOS and Android have showed that transition to completely different user experience is possible and less of a headache than what many believe.

Security and privacy is another plus.

Last edited by memory_leak (2016-01-02 16:55:29)

Offline

#38 2016-01-03 03:56:51

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 6,275

Re: Free Software Purity

The world is not competitive, only the lesser developed species are. Competition is a sign of bad resource management and a lack of broad education. You cannot wipe aside the core principles of the free software movement with an unfinished thought based on an observation that ignores all causality.

Offline

#39 2016-01-06 19:50:11

memory_leak
Member
Registered: 2015-03-02
Posts: 43

Re: Free Software Purity

Awebb wrote:

The world is not competitive, only the lesser developed species are. Competition is a sign of bad resource management and a lack of broad education.

The lesser developed species" big_smile big_smile big_smile

Competition is one of reasons why species, including humans develop. Not the only one of course, but one of elements that contribute to development. By the way, my usage of the word "world" was rather illustrative and metaphorical to describe humans in industrial age not the sole existence of cold rocks and chemical elements.

Awebb wrote:

You cannot wipe aside the core principles of the free software movement with an unfinished thought based on an observation that ignores all causality.

What ecactly am I trying to wipe aside? Can  you point something in my post? What makes you think that my thought is unfinished? I am not wiping anything aside, if you opened your mind instead of reading in wishfull things that are neither said nor ment, we might have a reasonable productive conversation, but with such comments like one above you are just corrupting yourself, at least in my eyes.

Offline

#40 2016-01-07 00:11:33

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 6,275

Re: Free Software Purity

There is nothing to "face" about the competitive elements of an industry, that makes a lot of money. This is exactly, what the more and more diminishing movement part of the free software movement is trying to compensate. More and more people capitulate and start facing all kinds of "facts" to the point, where open is super important, but free is not. Even worse, some of them try to compete with the commercial industry, because they somehow feel they have long grown out of their movements and into their business pants.

I really don't want to deconstruct your post, because it doesn't lead anywhere, but you are operating under wrong assumptions. It is simply not true, that nobody asks motherboard manufacturers to open their software, for one it is just that they can just give us the finger and say "good luck elsewhere". Furthermore, users interact with graphics drivers more often than with, say, CPU microcode, and GPU drivers have a noticeable impact, while some mainboard firmware performance problem usually goes undetected for the majority of most mainboards life cycles. The average news reading user will, of course, read a lot about graphics drivers, because the average news site is trying to generate content for clicks, and the biggest group of news reading tech enthusiasts seems to have use for 3D cards.

Platitudes, false assumptions and a comparison of software features, that is what you want people to open their minds for.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB