Explain why fsf says that hardware with firmware that cannot be updated is free software?
If a device or piece of hardware uses non free firmware, but the firmware cannot be updated, then fsf can approve the hardware, correct? Or does it only apply for hardware that cannot connect to the internet?
Why would fsf accept that? If no user can read the firmware source code, then it can be full of spyware and backdoors the user cannot know about, no matter if the non free firmware cannot be updated?
How is it different from hardware implementing backdoors in circuits,
with no firmware?
libre hardware is sort of a separate issue
but i think its almost as important to have libre hardware as it is software for security and privacy
just because it is a circuit and not software dose not means its ok dose it?
if a non-free program can spy on the user
and a circuit can spy on the user
i think the circuit is worse as its normally impossible to
replace with libre software
I am a translator!
I think the greatest priority is to build completely libre hardware as the gluglug's thinkpads. We already have plenty of free software distros to choose from. Having a modern (really modern - not a 2008 laptop) laptop for a reasonable price to buy today would be the greatest thing for us!
I am a member!
The Gluglugs are NOT free hardware. They are just computers that are able to exclusively run fully free software. Other computers make this impossible.
The gluglugs are therefore a vast improvement over other computers that prevent free software from being used, but they are not free hardware and may still contain non-upgradable but non-free firmware or circuits.
true
dose anyone know how much money you need to make your own cpu/gpu/wifi card??
I am a translator!
yes. I used a wrong definition. But you know what I meant by it - a laptop with no proprietary bios and no proprietary firmware, and possibly something that is not as outdated as the x200 which is a laptop made 7 years ago!!
cheeeeeers
Note that “The FSF can approve the hardware” is very different from “The hardware runs on free software”. This is for practical reasons, else nothing could be RYF-certified.
I am a translator!
tonlee - I think you are talking about the difference between flashable and non-flashable hardware. The first is a concern because it implies you installing non-free software. The second is considered just hardware as nothing updates nor gets installed by the user (although having proprietary firmware on any kind of hardware is always bad).
read this article: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html
Strictly speaking, there was a non-free program in that computer: the BIOS. But that was impossible to replace, and by the same token, it didn't count.
The BIOS was impossible to replace because it was stored in ROM: the only way to to put in a different BIOS was by replacing part of the hardware. In effect, the BIOS was itself hardware--and therefore didn't really count as software. It was like the program that (we can suppose) exists in the computer that (we can suppose) runs your watch or your microwave oven: since you can't install software on it, it may as well be circuits, not a computer at all.
The ethical issues of free software arise because users obtain programs and install them in computers; they don't really apply to hidden embedded computers, or the BIOS burned in a ROM, or the microcode inside a processor chip, or the firmware that is wired into a processor in an I/O device. In aspects that relate to their design, those things are software; but as regards copying and modification, they may as well be hardware. The BIOS in ROM was, indeed, not a problem.
Since that time, the situation has changed. Today the BIOS is no longer burned in ROM; it is stored in nonvolatile writable memory that users can rewrite. Today the BIOS sits square on the edge of the line. It comes prewritten in our computers, and normally we never install another. So far, that is just barely enough to excuse treating it as hardware. But once in a while the manufacturer suggests installing another BIOS, which is available only as an executable. This, clearly, is installing a non-free program--it is just as bad as installing Microsoft Windows, or Adobe Photoshop. As the unethical practice of installing another BIOS executable becomes common, the version delivered inside the computer starts to raise an ethical problem issue as well.
I think there are two distinctions here we need to keep in mind
hardware - software
and
free - spywareless
What the FSF says, as far as I know is not that "It's free if it can't be updated".
I think they said something along the lines of "If it can't be tweaked, it can be counted as hardware, and since we specialise in software....."
is there as FHF(free hardware foundation) then?
i think even if they specialize in software they should educate pepole about the dangers of spyware circuits
but i understand they can only do so much
maby one day 3d printing will get good enough so we can print are own cpu firmware
but until then what exactly can we do about spy-ware other than don’t connect to any internet?
Depends on how close the EFF comes to such an organisation, I guess.
It is good to read and research, what will good for you.
But sometimes, all the logical advise is a bit irrational, suffering dementia, and Illogical.
Why?
Because, your patience, eagerness and specially your " financial budget" will dictate what you could afford. Regardless of the recommendations and negative connotations you could read.
That is an undeniable true fact!
Money talks and bullshit walks!
Thank you for the answers.
The stated links I had already read. And I know that gluglug computers are not free hardware. On this forum in another post I have asked what to call hardware that is not free but all software it has installed is? I did not get a clear answer.
>tonlee - I think you are talking about the difference between flashable and non-flashable hardware
It is more about can fsf approve hardware that in non flashable and contains non free software? Because cannot non flashable hardware spy just as much on you as flashable hardware? Or due to my lack of technical knowledge, is it a fact that there is no way you can audit free software on a non flashable hardware?
An ex. A notebook manufacturer decides to get this function on one of their notebooks. A chip with non free software that by itself connects to the manufacturer and tells if all the notebook hardware is fine. The chip cannot be flashed, updated, upgraded.
My question is, can a computer with that chip get fsf approval? Because if it can, then a fsf approval is not something I can use.
To me a fsf approval must ensure, that all software can be audited so the user can get knowledge about what the computer can do.
Is it a fact that a manufacturer is able to put a spy chip on a piece of hardware and it would not somehow and rather fast get public?
Is that what
>How is it different from hardware implementing backdoors in circuits, with no firmware?
is about?
What is circuit with no firmware?
>maby one day 3d printing will get good enough so we can print are own cpu firmware
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ysOO33Nv3bI#t=2155
The FSF doesn't judge hardware based on whether or not it's malicious, but rather, on whether or not you are not being restricted from exercising control over your computing. Firmware being burnt into a ROM is not a gratuitous restriction like Microsoft's refusal to give the source code to Windows, but rather just a natural consequence of the particular method of storage. The FSF's position is simply that since you can't change what's on the ROM anyway, you wouldn't be able to exercise the four freedoms even if you were permitted to.
You wouldn't even be able to reliably audit the code that's there, because who's to say the binary isn't different from the supposed source code? The only way you would be able to tell is if you managed to compile a binary that is exactly like the binary on the ROM, which you might not even know how to do.
In a pre-electronical age, owning a machine raised no ethical issues since you could study its mechanisms and make sure that it's not mistreating you.
Think of a wheelbarrow for instance.
1. The owner could check how it works
2. It was technically very limited when it comes to possibly harming the owner
Both points aren't true anymore for computers.
They are too complex and mechanisms are implemented on a microscopic scale; it's impossible for us to check every circuit.
On top of that, there are plenty of ways to mistreat the owner thanks to modern technology.
That's why we need tools that allow everybody to produce their own hardware based on free documentation.
A pc running 100% free software DOES NOT mean that it's an ethical machine.
However, if it doesn't run free software, it's already unethical.
Very interesting topic! I want to buy a new laptop and, in these days, I'm thinking the same things... I know little about eletronics, I read the link that says what are the Companies that sell computers with GNU/Linux preinstalled, ( https://www.gnu.org/links/companies.en.html ), maybe a Lenovo... I'm lucky because now I've no money and time for think ehehe
Early in my career, I realized that changing jobs meant moving to a new domicile, and that the higher rent would consume most of my improved income, so I jumped off that runaway train.
Now we're seeing a similar situation in computers, with an "arms race" between hardware and software manufacturers to satisfy the gaming community. GNU/linux has come to our aid by providing more efficient software that make less complex (i.e., older) hardware function well enough in the fields where the rest of us toil.