Re: more evil firmwares found
* Nathanael Nerode [Wed, Apr 14 2004, 01:49:03PM]:
> > What else? Do you realize that you declare the most part of sold
> > hardware (in some areas) as evil and dead stuff, and the only
> > explanation/advice you provide is: buy-a-new-hardware-dude. What about
> > simple people that spent >>1k€ for a pre-configured box and expect to
> > run Linux on them? They cannot simply go and replace parts, this means a
> > lot of money (and time to sell the old components again).
> This happens regardless. Look at, to use your own example, Winmodems.
> >7 years ago, I
> > could laugh about winmodems and such crap because they were an
> > exception. Today, this happens more and more often.
> So you don't laugh at winmodems any more. I assume you see the problem with
> being locked in to non-free software?...
LOL. You just indicated that you don't know what you are talking about.
The "winmodems" are indeed bad hardware, they don't upload the firmware
into the device but do everything in the driver. Almost off-topic here.
> >> (a) Nobody seems to be *listening*; they keep saying "Everyone will need
> >> this firmware!".
> > No. I think you are blinded after fighting the evil non-free software,
> > so much that you don't see the limits of feasibility.
> And I think you're seeing the limits of feasibility where they aren't.
The limits are there. You just dreamed that you can force hardware
vendors to share their IP, giving away things they need to earn the
money to survive. But now it's time to wake up.
> >> (b) I didn't pick *any* of this stuff with an eye to avoiding non-free
> >> firmware; it's a completely random sample.
> > Same story.
> As what?
As above. You construct the examples or construct explanations to make
them look non-DSFG-free. By ignoring explanations that tell you
> > GPLed drivers with just some (free modifiable and redistributable BLOBs)
> > are an acceptable solution.
> Fine; if they're acceptable to you, go ahead and use them. I have no
> problem with that, and I use non-free software as well. But they're not a
> DFSG-free-software solution unless the blobs are DFSG-free software.
They are. As long as you cannot *proove* that they are not the preferred
for of modification (and this can be very hard since Linux driver
developers never modify it), don't claim that they are not DSFG-free.
> Oh, wait, I think I see the problem:
> You're only considering blobs for which rights are clearly granted to modify
No, you don't. You try to find another way to put sth. in my mouth.