How much x86 power are we excluded from?
I know that only a subset of the x86 architecture is fully open, so what are we missing out on by using Linux , not to mention Linux-libre as a kernel?
Another question I have is do you think software or hardware is more important? I am involved with Qi-hardware, who makes copyleft hardware but so far I cannot do what I want with those projects. I can, however, if I use the normal gnu/linux-libre on a laptop with non-free hardware (but that does work by accident with Free software). The question for me is why persist so long using a system that will not release all its details or features to us as hackers? The tyranny of x86 is alive and well and I feel tethered to it because I can't do decent animation or graphics design without an x86 machine. However, maybe that tyranny is lessened by the fact that I use Libre software on the x86 hardware? Still, the fact that I have to use the chip at all annoys me deeply. The only other architecture that MAY work acceptibly is ARM, but I think there are similar freedom issues there ie it's just as secret. Plus there aren't many ARM laptops out there...
Perhaps you all here think that once you have Free Software all is solved though because spy and anti-features cannot be activated, not as easy to track, etc.
> Another question I have is do you think software or hardware is more
> important?
Software, since it's very difficult to modify or copy chips.
> The
> question for me is why persist so long using a system that will not
> release all its details or features to us as hackers? The tyranny of
> x86 is alive and well and I feel tethered to it because I can't do
> decent animation or graphics design without an x86 machine.
Replacing it needs different skills than writing free software and it's
probably not easily done with similarly small costs.
> The only other architecture that MAY work
> acceptibly is ARM, but I think there are similar freedom issues there
> ie it's just as secret. Plus there aren't many ARM laptops out
> there...
Is ARM better than MIPS for this? GPUs might be a bigger problem
(Lemote machines known to support a free BIOS don't play videos well,
although lack of documentation is mostly not a reason for this).
> Perhaps you all here think that once you have Free Software all is
> solved though because spy and anti-features cannot be activated, not
> as easy to track, etc.
Free software doesn't solve all problems (e.g. it's easy to find
hacker-unfriendly non-GPL-compatible free software licenses), but it's
easier to do than solving some other important problems, some of which
currently need nonfree software.
What do you mean by "only a subset of the x86 architecture is fully open"? Are there instructions that only Intel and its partners (Microsoft) knows about?
Second question: what on earth is "copyleft hardware"?! Do you have a copying machine that duplicates computers?
The Free software movement is about freeing the users. Not the other developers. As a user I want to know how to use the hardware (for instance, to respect its users, the video card makers must detail how their cards must be used, the best way to do so is releasing their drivers under a Free software license). Nevertheless I do not need to know how to build the hardware because I cannot build it myself. The required technology is far too expensive. If one day, we have copying machines for hardware (the 3D printers are the first step in that direction), the users will need the four freedoms of Free software to be translated into the physical world. Until then, they cannot exercise them. Therefore I believe requesting them is irrelevant.
NB: I am voluntarily provocative because I really would like to understand the ethical issues addressed by the so-called copyleft-hardware.
I am a translator!
The idea behind open hardware is that if there are problems with the hardware these can be solved by the community. Examples of this include hardware fixes to the Neo Freerunner, such as a microphone fix to lessen noise ("Buzz Fix") and a fix to enable sleep mode of the GSM which extends battery life. Manufacturers of hardware obviously prefer that people buy new hardware instead of extending the capabilities of their existing hardware.
Answer to question 1: Yes, there are secret features of all x86 chips that Intel licenses. This confirms my suspicion that GNU/Linux users have always been missing out on performance and still are. However, that does not mean I am considering going back to non-free software. I repeat my previous sentiment that if Intel is not with us or for us, why should we be for them? My source is the wiki for x86 architecture. When it comes to the open? question, the wiki has this
Partly. For some advanced features, x86 may require license from Intel; x86-64 may require an additional license from AMD. The 80486 processor has been on the market for over 20 years [1] and so cannot be subject to patent claims. This subset of the x86 architecture is therefore fully open.
(according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86)
So 586 and 686 users ARE missing out.
Now as for what copyleft hardware is, a good definition is:
You can say your product is Qi hardware if it has:
* Copyleft Plans (CC BY-SA): Plans to manufacture the device.
* Copyleft Software (GPL): Software to use the device and to construct it from the plans.
* Patent-Free: Patents free and clear for technology on the device.
The goal of Qi is to have 100% Copyleft Hardware.
that was taken from qi-hardware.com
They are very forward thinking because they DO translate the 4 freedoms into the hardware world and have already made 2 copyleft products of which I have one, the MilkyMist and the Nanonote
People may not be able to replicate hardware, but manufacturers can and they can use copyleft plans easily
Maybe this is not a question people on this forum can answer if they are not interacting with the code at a kernel level.
I am a translator!
Qi is certainly a nice project and building hardware for free software in a community is probably really fun.
I don't quite understand though, why hardware should be patent-free? Patents in the physical world actually serve a purpose and there are no problems with them there, in theory. It's the software world where patents become simply absurd. If you build a new piece of hardware and are able to make it superior to old stuff in some way, why not have a patent for the hardware? So that only you can build this piece for some time, not to hinder others to use it within their software projects that is.
For a fuller set of reasons, see http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/Why_make_and_sell_copyleft_hardware
but one major one is to prevent planned obsolescence (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Planned_obsolescence)
Also, as users one can see the complete schematic so that prevents hardware anti-features like RFID's to track users, etc.
Interesting how unnoticed this post is, prepare to see it drift down the list until it's off everyone's mind...
What kind of responds were you expecting?
It seems to me that you didn't receive the responds you were expending,
because you didn't made you point clear and straightforward, and you
seem disrespectful.
I don't feel like I'm missing any performance or functionality by using
only free software along with my CPU. I feel my system is quite fast and
functional, and not any slower than a non-free system which I've used on
this same computer. Also, I use a free system ("free", at least when it
comes to software) not because I want a faster or more functional
computer.
I don't see the point in deciding which is more important, software or
hardware. If I say one or the other, what will this lead to practically?
Most people buy x86 CPUs because these kind of processors are
predominantly sold. Most GNU distributions support only or mainly these
kind of processors because most people use them. Which CPU, or what kind
of CPU should I buy and why? I don't want to rely on Intel or AMD, but
what is better?
No, I don't think all is solved by free software. In fact, I think there
are many other problems in today's society, other than software.
In the Free Software camp, mere use of a non-Free, or proprietary piece of software, let alone a non-Free operating system, constitutes subjugation to developers. I am suggesting that few people, even in the "extreme" end of the spectrum towards RMS's end have considered that hardware should be Free too. Just look at what proprietary batteries have done to the laptop, phone, and to some degree camera market. If people started having differing wall-sockets, then maybe they would care.
As for sounding disrespectful I'm not sure how I managed that, but lots of people I know think RMS is a jerk too, so...
I think it DOES matter that our CPU's were never intended for use in a Free world. This is why we have always had to compromise, because there is always some layer we cannot see, with the exception of x486, which is old, and even that is "open" only by accident, by being on the market over 20 years.
Now these platforms arise, like MilkyMist One and Ben Nanonote that are tailored from day 0 to only run Free Software and almost no one knows about them. Not only that, few even see the point! Perhaps so much talk of Free Software has prevented us from logically extending the societal changes the movement is working for. Do we really want a world with Free Software but NOT Free hardware? We would have to reverse engineer everything and still be in legal danger.
As for the CPU's, MIPS is somewhat better than Intel, but the real case in point is Qi-hardware's Milkymist Soc which includes graphics acceleration. The entire unit takes 5W total. Even the casing is copyleft.
Everybody agrees that interoperability is good (but that has nothing to do with having the instructions about how to build the piece of hardware). Everybody agrees that the documentation about how to use a piece of hardware should be freely available (the best way of doing that is to have free drivers).
Having the documentation about how to build the hardware is something else. Not having it does not restrict your freedom since no user has the required equipment to "copy" the hardware (let alone the 3D printers and the design files ought to be free), that is to say she cannot exercise what would be the analogous freedoms to those in the software world. If, in the future, anybody will be able to build her own processor, that would become essential to have the freedoms to copy and modify the hardware. But that is a problem of the future and I believe it is a mistake to try to solve a problem that, today, does not exist (future technologies will be different from the ones we have today and they may help in solving the problem).
People thinking Stallman is a jerk doesn't excuse you. You are responsible for your actions, as Stallman is for his. The reason you seem disrespectful is because you expressed several assumption that all people here are ignorant. You did it even in your first post, before actually hearing anyone's opinion on the issue. This isn't constructive in way, so it only servers to insult people.
I agree with you that the predominant hardware companies are unethical and should not be supported. I agree with you on all the issues you listed that result from the unethical behavior of those companies: Patents, planned obsolescence, non-compatible batteries, anti-features, secrecy on how hardware works, etc. These are typical harmful ploys used by such companies against us for their gain, and are obvious reasons why we should fight back.
I DO agree that it matters what CPU we use. I just don't agree that my AMD CPU is significantly slower with free software, or that this is the most important issue here. Wherever is faster or slower, when I buy a new computer I'll still want to buy from someone who doesn't strive to screw us, like Intel and AMD do.
I was thinking of buying a Lemote Yeeloong, which uses a MIPS CPU. When the time comes, I'll also consider other computers, such as the those listed on http://www.qi-hardware.com/.
Well, I must admit that I am an ignorant when it comes to hardware, but I have always thought that one way to support the free software movement is buying hardware that can be use with free software. That for me is the drivers and the BIOS.
It seems to me that now days is super hard to find a computer that can use free drivers and a free BIOS other than a netbook called Lemote.
I think that supporting the companies that intentionally try to offer free software compatible hardware is crucial.
One of my friends and I have always wonder. Why can't we make our own Hardware? Why do we have to spend so much time and effort in reverse engineering?
Sorry I'm going to have to answer my self on this one: Why can't we make our own Hardware? Why do we have to spend so much time and effort in reverse engineering?
Answer: Because most people don't know about their software rights, and buy hardware from not free software friendly companies. And if we only focus in making our own hardware for our own selfs we would left behind all those people. Am I right?
I still think that I would like that there could be more companies making computers for the free software movement. Oh well, I don't know. See you all.