Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: Kernel Developers Say No To Binary Blobs

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,657

    Default Kernel Developers Say No To Binary Blobs

    Phoronix: Kernel Developers Say No To Binary Blobs

    The Linux Foundation and over 140 kernel developers have today issued a message reaffirming their position on binary-only drivers within the Linux kernel. Their positional statement reinforces that any closed-source Linux kernel module is harmful and undesirable...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NjU0Mw

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Love the wording they chose - harmful and undesirable. Couldn't be more apt if you sat up all night with a thesaurus. Death to the blobs!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    I'm not really sure how this is supposed to make anything different. They have being saying that loudly since the inception of linux (perhaps even longer).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,072

    Default

    I don't see Linus in the list..

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    PL
    Posts
    910

    Default

    linus is pragmatic - he doesn't object as long as it doesn't interfere with kernel development. he had no objections against tivo, so he might not be totally against blobs, because sometimes they are the only way (think about firmware required for some tuners/usb modems/other stuff - these are blobs too).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Aye, that will really help - just like UN's angry letters has in other issues.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    210

    Default

    I think this is NOT enough. They must prepare a campaign against binary blobs in the kernel with their own site and get more people, companies and groups supporting it.

    Keep on, I totally agree with them and just want they to put more pressure on hardware makers.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /dev/random
    Posts
    218

    Default

    AFAIK, Linus says closed development is OK, but open-development is much better. I don't think he a FOSS fanatic (like the rest of us humans )

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yoshi314 View Post
    linus is pragmatic - he doesn't object as long as it doesn't interfere with kernel development. he had no objections against tivo, so he might not be totally against blobs, because sometimes they are the only way (think about firmware required for some tuners/usb modems/other stuff - these are blobs too).
    firmware for tuners and such is an ENTIRELY different thing, as that runs ON THE DEVICE..

    before people just put the firmware on some rom device, nowadays its moving towards being loaded to the device due to easy firmware upgrades, and cheaper hardware..

    I dont give a rats ass if there is a firmware blob being loaded to a tuner or such a piece of hardware, however, i do care about crappy blobs being loaded into my kernel, completely fucking everything up (think nvidia/fglrx)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    PL
    Posts
    910

    Default

    firmware for tuners and such is an ENTIRELY different thing, as that runs ON THE DEVICE..
    ah, but of couse. that's totally irrelevant. but the pc is also a device, isn't it?

    think for a moment about custom open-source firmware for routers (esp linksys wrt54gl series). do you still think it's irrelevant if the firmware remains a blob, or is it better to provide an open firmware, which often provides more features than standard stock blob?

    some modems/tuners/wi-fi cards require firmware, that you have to forcefully extract from windows drivers in order to obtain it.what if that would mean violating the software licence? (actually it might be this way already, as most driver licenses prohibit you from messing with the files).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •