Deblobbed iwlwifi in 4.10+ libre kernels
Dear Trisquel Community,
for my office and programmers work I have used Panasonic Toughbook CF-30 machine because it allows me to work in all weathers and is extremely reliable. I'm excited Linux user and free distributions have its charm. Trisquel 8 works very well in this notebook including 3D acceleration, all software for my needs is free, the only problem there will be the wifi card - lspci says: "Intel Corporation WiFi Link 5100".
I know, that iwlwifi driver is non free with blobs and in your forum has already been discussed in the past. I try the newest kernel version 4.16 from jxself:
https://jxself.org/linux-libre/
lspci is OK, but this card do not working here, ip addr nor networkmanager can not view it.
On the other hand I had examined fsfla site:
https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/selibre/linux-libre/
and I found information about deblobbing iwlwifi driver in 4.10, 4.14 and 4.16 kernel.
Have you please any details about this deblobbing? In the site I had found nothing. Or my I try to recompile 4.16 kernel and manually add this driver? If possible, I would like to avoid this situation, because my machine is quite old, future upgrades for this modified kernel will be very slow during compilation and for this reason I prefer binary packages. So I would like to ask someone who may have experience with this card. Otherwise I am completely satisfied with Panasonic and in the future I will use Toughbook models, so working wifi will be ideal combination for real LTS machine and freedom LTS operating system.
Thank you for reading
Ludek Stastny - Czech republic
Deblobbing iwlwifi means it relies on proprietary software that the Linux-libre project removes. So, it is not surprising that your Wifi does not work. I guess you have already found on this forum the (unfortunately usual) recommendation in your case. If not, here it is: https://trisquel.info/forum/trisquel-compatible-usb-nano-wireless#comment-109933
Deblobbing something means removing the freedom offending driver or firmware and not suggesting it in documentation or otherwise endorsing it.
There's a difference between how Trisquel and Debian handle this. Debian gives instructions on how to enable non-free software while Trisquel recommends free alternatives. In this instance, there's no free driver for this hardware, so with Trisquel your options are as MBanana wrote above. Get a USB dongle for your wifi that will work with free software.
Maybe you are confusing deblobbing with reverse-engineering.
Yes definitely good news to me (it true), which my wifi card needs the nonfree iwlwifi driver up to 4.15.n kernels, will that be asap ported to Parabola thanks?
There is no good news w.r.t. iwlwifi: read again the thread.
It looks to stand for asking for the deblobbed iwlwifi drivers and that's not yet done.
Many thanks to all your answers and explanation, what deblobbing true means. It is sad, that most of the wifi cards do not working with libre kernel, but for now I understand the reason.
I will use small USB wifi dongle from TP Link, it works well with Trisquel without any issue. Maybe in the future the situation will change and manufacturers will be more willing to deliver their drivers to the community.
Nice coming weekend
Ludek
The Libre Kernel is a Kernel that is clean of blobs or possible non-free firwares also in the repositories.
So if in any case you need install any firware you are alone to do it manually with or without any help of people on foruns and without technical help (documentation) of the distros that uses Libre Kernel .
However if you really needs make up a firware detection on your system you can try install the firmware manually by a source , put some speciall attention on the versions of kernels that the firware is compatible and works, You can install firmwares on Libre Kernels also as in Kernel non-free, but the Libre Kernel maybe needs more configs to some firwares work for example - dependencies more aditional configs on files etc... .
Remember - when you do it - you lost your freedom or you are in the way to get it.
Yes, it is true, that it should not be a problem to install non-free firmware with libre kernel. Except Ubuntu/Trisquel I use many other distributions and for example in libre Slackware variant there is relatively simple way to modify Slackbuild file and install libre kernel with necessary iwlwifi files. There is nice site about recompiling their kernel:
https://freenix.net/fxp/freeslack64-14.2/source/fxp/build/linux-libre/
But of course I know, that this operation will lost Libre distribution freedom. It is the question, whether use my external TP Link dongle or more comfortable only Toughbook with this small kernel modification, but with necessarily by hand recompile the new kernel version. I'm not a fanatic and I try to look at everything with insight and use common sense, so the best way is to test both variants - the first works perfectly, the second is waiting for trying.
Of course the best way is create true opensource iwlwifi driver, in the past I was working as system administrator and now I am interested in programming. I love text adventure games, so my first programming language was TADS3, but because I'm very interested in linux, the next step will be learn C/C++, so I will be able to fully explore this system and after gaining more experience maybe prepare this piece of software, it will be a great gift to the community.
I'm not a fanatic and I try to look at everything with insight and use common sense...
How come a freedom-loving user is a 'fanatic' if he/she refuses to install non-free software? I understood you already had a working free wifi dongle to use with your toughbook.
If otherwise, this person would be a hypocrite. It'd be like going to Anonymous Alcoholics, and after a session go to the nearest bar round the corner and get drunk.
I understand a fanatic would refuse to ever touch a non-free dongle even if there were no other alternatives. Using non-free is not going to kill anybody but reverting to it after having a solution at hand is something else.
2018-04-27T12:09:45+0200 name at domain wrote:
> Yes, it is true, that it should not be a problem to install non-free
> firmware with libre kernel. Except Ubuntu/Trisquel I use many other
One must note that, compared to common distros, free/libre ones don't
*facilitate* installing non-free functional data (which also includes
software but has other items besides this).
However, at a personal level, you can of course go all the way dirty and
install the things even in a free/libre distro. However, don't go around
telling others to do the same, nor help them do that. This implies that
the *community* around the free/libre distro also don't stimulate
installing non-free functional data.
What a free/libre software mustn't do is forbid you from installing
non-free functional data. This behavior is considered a bug. As for the
kernels that are built using the GNU Linux-libre scripts, these kernels
currently have this bug, and the project knows about it, and are trying
to fix it --- but it turns out to be more complex due to the way Linux
kernel itself works ([1]). Please be very aware of this kind of
misinformation that people are spreading in the circles not related to
free/libre distros, and help by correcting them by citing [1]. Sometimes
people might not even "spread" that information, but instead keep that
for themselves, which is also bad because they can turn that card up any
time.
Finally, as was told, the workaround for this bug in the kernels that
are built using GNU Linux-libre scripts is to get the corresponding
source files and modify the sources explicitly of the GNU Linux-libre
scripts. How you will do that might depend on the non-free functional
data that you will use, and this I cannot teach.
[1]
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2018-01/msg00032.html
.
--
- Formas de contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Ativista do /software/ livre (não confundir com gratuito). Avaliador
da liberdade de /software/ e de /sites/.
- Arquivos que aceito: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#Arquivos
- Contribuições à sociedade:
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#Contributions
- Gosta do meu trabalho? Contrate-me ou doe algo para mim!
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#Suporte
- Use comunicações sociais federadas padronizadas, onde o "social"
permanece independente do fornecedor. #DeleteWhatsApp. Use #XMPP
(https://libreplanet.org/wiki/XMPP.pt), #DeleteFacebook
#DeleteInstagram #DeleteTwitter #DeleteYouTube. Use #ActivityPub via
#Mastodon (https://joinmastodon.org/).
- #DeleteNetflix #CancelNetflix. Evite #DRM:
https://www.defectivebydesign.org/
Many thanks loldier to your answer, the word fanatics I thought rather of fun. Yes, I absolutely agree to use a relatively small non-free driver with the fact that when I do not need it, I will remove it is the ideal solution. I like how we are called in the Czech Republic "a golden middle way" and this is how I try to behave in my normal life.
Very interesting opinion, which I have not met yet, also has ADFENO, libre software should not forbid me from installing
non-free functional data. Yes, I absolutelly agree, this is true libre way very close to my preffered "golden middle way", I can choose fully libre system and if it is not possible, do this little non-free modification. If libre kernel developers can add this funkcionality, I will be very happy and I believe not only me, but I am understand, that this will be very difficult, if I examine kernel sources, my head is spinning.
So the best way for me for this time is to use TP-Link wifi dongle, kernel compilation in my machine is not the ideal way. This is not a problem for me, just like I need to use an external mouse I can use the dongle, Toughbook has 3 USB ports, so this is not a problem. I will be watching the situation around libre kernel and if I can help after gaining more programming experience, I will do it.
Thank you once again for clarification, I finally begin to understand the libre distros philosophy better.
2018-05-02T09:36:56+0200 name at domain wrote:
> of fun. Yes, I absolutely agree to use a relatively small non-free
> driver with the fact that when I do not need it, I will remove it is
> the ideal solution. I like how we are called in the Czech Republic "a
One must notice however that this "need" is sometimes weaker than what
some speakers say, for example, I don't "need" to install non-free
software in my own computer order to have my college assignment reviewed
for plagiarism, I can instead go to the college, LAN houses (a shop in
Brazil where one can get computers through rents paid per hour of
usage), and from these places, use that non-free functional data there
(also considering that I might have to install it there). It's very
different from Karen Sandler's scenario where she had to minimize the
risk of the non-free software somehow in her implantable cardiac
defibrillator because in that case she does "need" that thing otherwise
she probably wouldn't be among us free/libre activists.
All in all, I need to make an addendum here: while making use of these
non-free functional data seems to solve the immediate problem that you
have, it doesn't change the fact that we must do something to improve
the freedom of the software[1] in our computing.
The above adition also applies to JavaScript forced upon you through
websites[2]. Sometimes it's a matter of contacting the website owner
explaining how bad client-side autoexecuted scripts are for
accessibility, security (thanks to the discovery of Meltdown and
Spectre, see[3]) and privacy (for all these points, see [4][5][6]),
within that contact, also mention that there are ways to keep using
JavaScript, but that requires freeing it, and then mention the Free
JavaScript campaign[2] and the related development task force[7], which
by the way is also looking for skilled JS developers.
Other times, one must change service provider, to one which doesn't
require usage of a website like that.
[1] I used the term "freedom of the software" but the other one,
"software freedom" is more common. In short they both mean what is
expressed in the alternative I used, because we talk about *the
software* which should make *its freedoms* available to the
end-user. However, I once saw some people confusing "software freedom"
with "the freedom to choose which software to use", and this is a
communication noise in our circles, particularly seen in some "free
software" (sic) events in Brazil.
[2] https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/freejs .
[3] These two are literally impossible to fix, the only way to do so
would be to have 99% of the world's computers trashed.
[5] https://mikegerwitz.com/2018/01/Meltdown-Spectre-and-the-Web .
[6] https://mikegerwitz.com/2017/06/Don-t-force-me-to-use-your-tools-on-the-Web .
[7] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/js-devs-task-force .