Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Gabe (gabriel@mk.gabe.rocks)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 15:12:51 JST Gabe

   India is well on it's way to become a FOSS Superpower

   • Embed this notice
     rdr :amariokarttroopa: (rdr@rdrama.cc)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 15:12:49 JST rdr :amariokarttroopa:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki @gabriel Linux isn't proprietary tho
     
     unless you are sperging about drivers
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 15:12:49 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • rdr :amariokarttroopa:
     @rdr When I say something is proprietary, it is - you think I would make be mistaken about such an important topic?
     
     Here's three examples of proprietary software in Linux:
     https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ffdrv.h
     https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/net/appletalk/cops_ltdrv.h
     https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/powerpc/platforms/8xx/micropatch.c
     
     There's also plenty more mind you.
     
     Just like how you throw poison into a well it gets poisoned until the poison is removed, if you throw proprietary malware into a kernel, the entire thing becomes proprietary malware until the malware is removed.
     
     
     How there's a bunch of drivers where ¼ of the driver is in Linux and the other ¾ is in loadable, proprietary firmware is a different topic entirely.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 15:12:50 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @gabriel Maybe, but only because the kernel, Linux is proprietary software, which seems to be aligned with the wants of "FOSS" supporters.
   • Embed this notice
     ¢нαяℓιє яσσт (charlie_root@annihilation.social)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 15:52:33 JST ¢нαяℓιє яσσт

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • rdr :amariokarttroopa:
     @Suiseiseki @rdr
     
     This is why OpenBSD is better, no proprietary software in the source tree.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 15:52:33 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ¢нαяℓιє яσσт
     @charlie_root It's a terrible ideal to try to compare a kernel to an OS, but I guess how proprietary each is can be compared.
     
     
     I would say that OpenBSD is worse when it comes to proprietary software.
     
     It has a script that automatically downloads and install proprietary software without asking you if its detected that such exists for your hardware.
     
     Many installation recipes automatically download proprietary software as well without even asking.
     
     There isn't any meaningful difference between a package containing proprietary software and a package with machinery that downloads proprietary software without even asking during installation.
     
     
     Some Linux developers at least admit that Linux is proprietary, but I remember reading a comment from Theo that proprietary software installed by OpenBSD is "free and open" merely because the proprietary software was gratis and the proprietary master allowed indirect distribution to more suckers.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 16:29:18 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ¢нαяℓιє яσσт
     @charlie_root Now that's some proprietary cope.
   • Embed this notice
     ¢нαяℓιє яσσт (charlie_root@annihilation.social)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 16:29:19 JST ¢нαяℓιє яσσт

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     
     The script in OpenBSD you're referring too does so because otherwise you're computer will use whatever old code is baked into ROM, and may posses security vulnerabilities. Use hardware like Rochchip arm64 boards, and you won't have this problem. Some people just want their machine to work properly too, particularly wifi.
   • Embed this notice
     ¢нαяℓιє яσσт (charlie_root@annihilation.social)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 16:36:36 JST ¢нαяℓιє яσσт

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     
     No it's not cope to want your computer to work properly, you are just delusional.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 16:36:36 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ¢нαяℓιє яσσт
     @charlie_root >computer working properly
     >Proprietary software.
     Do you even think?
     
     It's really not that hard to get decent hardware that just works without having to load up proprietary malware.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 17:34:21 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ¢нαяℓιє яσσт
     @charlie_root >get an Rockchip board with an open design. >Pine64 Rockpro
     No, the RockPro64 hardware designs are not published - they're proprietary.
     
     Pine64 at least publishes schematics, which allows you to use the hardware as you can tell what each pin is for and allows basic repairs, but I wouldn't describe such arrangement as "open".
     
     But that's not really software related.
     
     It seems to be pretty difficult to actually get it to boot without proprietary software according to this blog post: https://stikonas.eu/wordpress/2019/09/15/blobless-boot-with-rockpro64/
     
     In the article quite a bit of proprietary software is removed after downloading it, but I get the feeling that some still lurks.
     
     The RockPro64 also uses LPDDR4 and I'm not sure if fully free raminit exists for that (I know such exists for certain memory controllers that handle DDR2 and DDR3, but none for DDR4).
     
     
     >You could also use a copeboot/libtardboot borked machine
     Now this is seething.
     
     I have a librebooted-libre Thinkpad R400 (best laptop I've used) and multiple librebooted-libre KGPE-D16's and they work far better than any current Aarch64 SoC (plus I don't need to provide any proprietary software to get them to boot unlike most Aarch64 SoC's).
     
     Why would I use something as crappy as Tianocore when the superior GNU Grub exists?
   • Embed this notice
     ¢нαяℓιє яσσт (charlie_root@annihilation.social)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 17:34:22 JST ¢нαяℓιє яσσт

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     
     Yeah, that's why I said get an Rockchip board with an open design. The Pine64 Rockpro (rk3399) is a good choice for OpenBSD. You could also use a copeboot/libtardboot borked machine (vomit), I would recommend using SeaBios or Tianocore as the payload, not grub2 as kopenbsd is broken.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 18:28:15 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ¢нαяℓιє яσσт
     @charlie_root >Armbian w/ Debian 11 userland and it's very open and free.
     Too bad Debian unstable (and eventually stable) is no longer optionally free (as previously), as all the installers have proprietary software in them.
     
     >it's booting firmware is all open these day
     Ideally SoC's should just use u-boot for init and everything, which would make booting free, as u-boot is meant to be GPLv2 licensed, but things are going backwards, rather than forwards.
     
     These days the SoC vendors are getting more and more brazen in putting proprietary software blobs everywhere and/or infringing u-boots license and then calling such proprietary mess "open".
     
     Of course everyone just believes them rather than just taking a quick look at the mess and then realizing that it's proprietary!
     
     >the ARM trusted firmware use MIT licence, but not so bad in my opinion
     The reason the pushover MIT expat license was used was so some parts could be released in source form and other parts as proprietary software (look here's some source code, it's "open", never mind the proprietary malware).
     
     The intention of the "trusted firmware" really to restrict the user with digital handcuffs, although it's possible to use it without the handcuffs - but it's not designed for that really.
     
     >thanks to the +JESUSISLORD license.
     Requiring the modification of the LICENSE file is a terrible clause as such will cause severe license proliferation for no good reason (a standard license should be used rather than writing a new one every 5 minutes, so automated tools can determine what license your software has - as it's a pain in the ass having to check 200 different variants of expat or BSD-3 clause and determining if the trivial changes make the software proprietary or not).
     
     Such terms are also not compatible with the GPLv3, as: "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this icense document, but changing it is not allowed."
     
     I guess it can be worked around by not having a LICENSE file and having a COPYING file instead, but I'd prefer not to really.
     
     I'd most likely just not use software under such poor license.
   • Embed this notice
     ¢нαяℓιє яσσт (charlie_root@annihilation.social)'s status on Sunday, 23-Apr-2023 18:28:16 JST ¢нαяℓιє яσσт

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     
     I don't know man. I have a Libre Computer roc-rk3399-pc board and I love that thing. Unfortunately I can't run OpenBSD on it, but I compile Armbian w/ Debian 11 userland and it's very open and free. From all my attempted to port OpenBSD to the board I can assure you it's booting firmware is all open these day. Yeah the ARM trusted firmware use MIT licence, but not so bad in my opinion. GPL is no longer necessary thanks to the +JESUSISLORD license. :dance:
     
     https://jesusislord.dembased.xyz/