Re: LCC and blobs
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > Fundamentally, the DFSG is aimed at making sure that we can provide the
> > software that we can support. Restrictions that leave us writing an
> > opaque blob of bits which drives an unknown API very much put us into
> > a context where we can't know that we're doing the right thing.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:39:26AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> The API is known, otherwise there would be no Linux driver.
The API that is programmed by the firmware -- which you shouldn't confuse
with the API used by the driver that downloads the firmware -- is not
known to us.
> The fact that we uploaded the firmware does not excuse the device from
> respecting its API.
Personally, I've never found devices to be particularly apologetic
under any circumstances.
> Nor is it our task to write the firmware, Debian is a distribution for
> general-purpose computers, if you want to have a distribution for firmware
> you are free to do so.
Are you thinking that these firmware devices are not used in general
purpose computers? If not, this seems about as relevant as the other
stuff you've said (which is to say: not at all).
> Debian should consider hardware as things that you have to talk to with a certain protocol.
This would make all software which uses a well defined interface into
> It is useful to re-upload the flash. Nothing else. So what is the
> difference between this use and the driver that has to load it every time?
The "has to" bit.