Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Please don't lose track of the fact that there's nothing inherently wrong
> with a sourceless binary if that's all the source anyone *has*.
I think in most of the cases under consideration, we have firmware
which a hardware manufacturer wrote and then either published or stuck
inside a windows driver, and which then found its way into a Linux
So while your statement is right, the relevant "anyone" includes the
hardware manufacturer, who quite likely does have source in a more
convenient form than a pure binary.
> If the
> assembly was painstakingly reverse-engineered, it *is* the source for all
> intents and purposes [...]
Quite right, but assembly code is *not* binary.