Hi, this is the conversation I had with Theo: 1. mail, 12.03.2007 01:29 Dear Theo, allBSD is currently prepairing for the Stop Blob! campaign an we have a poster ready here: http://www.allbsd.de/src/Kampagnen/StopBlob/StopBlob-en-Poster.pdf This is already translated into some languages, more are to come soon and I'm currently writing a flyer that will be translated too in as many languages as possible. Any objections/ideas? Best regadrs, Daniel 2. mail from Theo, 12.03.2007 02:34: I don't know why you are using a BSD daemon, when the two BSD's that use Daemon imagery are the ones that ACCEPT blobs, in particular, Sam Leffler's atheros driver. So I absolutely do not see how you think you can go stealing our campaign for your own use! WE are the only people of the ones that you claim to represent who are actually standing up for this issue. If you put those other project's names on there, that's unbelieveably disrespectful of our efforts. FreeBSD *specifically* has vendor drivers in it, and has developers who work at vendors. Not just Sam, but they also have an employee of NVidia who they consider a developer, and who now makes changes to the ethernet driver everyone got from us, without even replying to mails from our developers who wrote it! No. I entirely object to what you are doing here. You are trying to make it look like those other projects are anti-blob, when they are NOT. 3. mail from Theo, 12.03.2007 03:00: Did you even think about the fact that there are only two operating systems that ship without blobs? OpenBSD Debian (and derived systems) FreeBSD and NetBSD are not on the list of blob-less operating systems. Both of them ship with at least one blob, compiled directly into the kernel. Their developers have NEVER helped us fight for documentation, or fight the blob. They've made a couple vague words sometimes, but then gone back to their American ways and talked about the need to sometimes compromise. They ha...
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 12:06:31AM +0100, SW wrote: I have a feeling that the campaign means "We don't want vendors to require us to use a blob but we'll ocassionally use them when we have to other way", while Theo means "I don't want vendors to require us to use a blob and I refuse to use them even when no other way". And that the heated words stem from the subtle difference. Politics instead of developing. It's the vendors who decide about the blobs and they may or may not take your complaints into account. Your invested time may or may not return. If you don't like the blobs, here are the tools to get rid of them: http://geda.seul.org/tools/gschem/index.html http://geda.seul.org/tools/pcb/index.html http://datasheetarchive.com/ http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad.html http://www.brlcad.org/ There's not really much difference between writing software or writing hardware, it's merely a psychological barrier, software hackers are scared of tampering with hardware because they are not used to. The costs of prototypes are negligible compared to the cost of time involved - and this time is high both in software and hardware hacking. With these tools, your invested time will return for sure.
** Reply to message from Karel Kulhavy <clock@twibright.com> on Mon, 19 You've left out the extremely important fact that many vendors interpret acceptance of blobs by any "free" OS as validating their position of not releasing adequate documentation -- so accepting blobs (even when "there's no other choice") actively harms the anti-blob campaign. Dave -- Dave Anderson <dave@daveanderson.com>
It harms more than just the campaign, it harms anyone wanting to maintain a modicum of options further down the road in regards to hardware lifecycles, operating system and kernel lifecycles, and last but not least security. One anecdote regarding insecurity of mysterious binaries / BLOBs: A local privilege escation has been known to exist, unfixed, for several years in nvidia's binary drivers: http://lwn.net/Articles/204541/ However, if you can't audit (and subsequently compile) all the code, including the applications, libraries, compilers and OS, then you've got nothing secure and nothing that can be made secure - regardless of anecdotes, no amount of assurances, claims, hand waving, shouting, smoke, noise etc. from vendors. Don't take my word for it, read what the ACM had to say about it: http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/ But it's not just 'security' that is at risk. The lifecycle of both the operating system/kernel and the hardware that rely on the continued availability of the BLOBs become dependent on the BLOBs producers. Those are groups which may or may not continue to have interests and motivations which overlap yours. If your hardware or system needs a BLOB to run, then the BLOB-maker has you on a leash. Endorsing BLOBs puts *all* hardware, systems, and security at risk through active effort, which is reprehensible. To have one system accepting them, makes it all that much harder to keep them off. Think digital scab. Tolerating BLOBs or failing to eliminate BLOBs, are simply balless passive means of putting the above at risk. To put it another way, it's possible to gain control (political, economical, technical) of systems that get locked into BLOBs either passively or actively and encroachment into one system/distro can be used to marginalize the others. So to put it as kindly as I can, only people somewhere on the spectrum between stupid and troll would be advocating acceptance or tolerance of BLOBs. It's an act of harm that affects more than ...
I lurk on this list and occasionally kibbitz. Various effects make OpenBSD a very efficient leading indicator. It works essentially thus. If the hardware gives OpenBSD trouble, it will tend to give everybody else trouble sooner or later.
The same is with software. Compiling and running on OpenBSD seems to be one method of finding bugs in programs along with electric fence etc. CL<
Here is the root of the problem/disagreement/difference as I see it. OS's that accept blobs are giving the vendors proof that supplying blobs only rather than true documentation is enough to get their hardware supported in free OSes. I think that statement is enough, but to restate: FreeBSD, by accepting blobs to enable hardware support via any vendor or any developer, is hurting the anti-blob movement because the vendors now have less incentive to release real documentation since the blob was enough to get their hardware supported under FreeBSD. Best, Chris
You are so uninformed that it isn't even funny to pick on you.
Karel clocks on the wrong edge and is by far the worst educated asocial asshole I have met on this list. +++chefren
I second that. danno -----Original Message----- From: owner-misc@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-misc@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of chefren Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 7:34 PM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: No Blob without Puffy Karel clocks on the wrong edge and is by far the worst educated asocial asshole I have met on this list. +++chefren
Easy man, you need to get laid.
Easy man, you were chastised, you ran away for a week, now you're back. There's no need to make stupid (and this really is stupid, and inane, and couldn't-you-do-any-better) insults. Just go back to asking and helping people like everyone else and you'll be fine. -Nick
Hi all, Sorry for the size of this email, but this issue drives me nuts. This discussion is for the most part not going anywhere and looks like dirty laundry between various party. Campaign for no BLOB start by refusing BLOB period. No one will do goodwill if not force to do so. That's human nature at large with few exceptions, but definitely corporation nature BIG TIME! Never ear of the corporate Jello mentality? No matter how hard you push on one side of the jiggleling good looking served plate on your table, as soon as you stop pushing, it takes is original form back, unless you cut part of it. Same for BLOBs. Unless you cut them out, they will keep coming back. Show how BLOB are bad, refuse them, buy hardware that don't need BLOB. If a product don't sale, they get replace on the free market, that's just how it is. Company are after market share, if they don't sale, they will change. So, make them change! I already post proof on this list a few months ago of how bad BLOB are with proof that if push to shove, I would argue that even the stock exchange commission might be interested to know in some cases. In my own case, I discover in my expensive commercial product purchase a few years ago and fully licenses with yearly 20% purchase price recurring support cost on it, that without my knowledge and even my explicit agreement, that private informations were send to that company each night! When raise hell on it, was send left and right with no clear answer, but keeping pushing was told that it will be disable in my license. But why was it there in the first place I asked? Did I have a choice? I didn't even know it. I didn't trust that answer, put firewall filtering everything coming OUT of it and collecting stats on it as well to proof my point and to fully discover really how it was working, oppose to what the technical manual said it was work. With logs in hands, send to them, that same company discovered that some informations was leaking t...
Interesting story about a security breach. Did this ever happen with a firmware for a wireless chipset? Or directly in the wireless chip? Or, even funnier, in the CPU or the northbridge? Technically it's definitely possible. CL<
You mean this right: My gosh, what company is this? There's no reason to protect them, tell us. -Nick
If you want to find out, you can by digging in the archive. It's there, but I can't tell you sorry! Not yet anyway, hopefully soon.
This is a very good summary of the situation Karel. With this summary in mind: is it worth it for either side to get as worked up as they have been? -Nick
<snip> Your `No Blob!' poster, complete with logos of BSD systems that ship with blobs, will feel right at home beside my `Trustworthy Computing Initiative' and `Mission Accomplished' banners. A true laughing-stock in the making. Trust me, this isn't just Theo and the big, bad openbsd ogres being hardasses about blobs. This is just a stupid and misleading campaign.
As it was said, it's "appalling" and "disrespectful". The tread really show how focus you and FreBSD is not focus on the issue really. Or have I guess may be I am a little angry to see the shortsighted views of some BSD's and how they undermine the efforts of others for their own benefit. I guess it is somewhat expected. I thought the BSD's had more integrity then others. I guess not. Market share is what they are after isn't it? If you really want to be "focus and productive", first, start by removing the BLOB's from FreeBSD, get the other BSD's to do the same, then talk with one unify voice. Then and only then will you get the ears of the vendors and really start fighting back the BLOB's issue for real! Then and only then will you get my respect, my support and even my financial support if need be. You talk about freedom of choice, you are not helping it! I just wish I could find a logo from vendor on hardware saying that the hardware is fully supported in open source without BLOB, by real open documentations, without NDA. Then, and only then "my freedom of choice" would be fully respected and I could pick good hardware and pay with MY hard earn money, for hardware that is fully respectful of me the buyer! But, I can't get full specs many times before buying it and then get stuck with it and go sale it back on E*Bay as bad hardware from low life narrow minded vendor that do not understand that providing documentations on how to talk to their hardware makes it good for them, their bottom line and the users and DO NOT undermine any of their intellectual property in anyway. No code is asked of them in anyway, no secret is asked of them in anyway, just the documentations on how to talk to their interfaces so that good drivers can be written for the hardware I pay for and that will make their reputations better in the end with good reliable and performant hardware support for my choice of OS, me the customer that pay for the hardware to start w...
I'll have to agree with Theo on this one. You're definetly spreading a lie with that flyer. Anyone who reads the flyer as it is will probably assume that the 4 BSDs are against blobs. When it's not really a fact. Maybe the greatest part of freebsd and netbsd community is against blobs, but that's not what the flyer is saying, it's saying that the projects are against blobs. That's what those symbols represent, isn't it? And that's obviously not true, since freebsd and netbsd ship with blobs. It's not like they have no choice, there are big projects that ship their products without blobs. You may write nice documents explaining what a blob is and which systems have and which do not. The problem is that the flyer is not telling us that, it's suggesting that those 4 BSDs are against blob, and therefore they don't have blobs. It may even trick people into installing freebsd or netbsd thinking they're installing blob-free software and therefore contributing to make the world free of blob.
I think it is disingenuous to include those BSDs which have blobs on such a flyer, especially in a position at the bottom which implies sponsorship or support of such a campaign when they are actively in violation of it's stated purpose. How about you put their logos under the hammer? -- Sincerely, Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com> Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig Less matter, more form! - Bruno Schulz ignazz, I am truly korrupted by yore sinful tzourceware. -jb what a klon - neko
Nope, not productive at all in my opinion. Theo is right on the mark about you.
On Mar 18, 2007, at 7:06 PM, SW wrote: <snip a formerly private email thread> I read your entire thread, and find it appalling that not only will you take someone's private email and broadcast it, but that it incriminates you on all counts. You admit that FreeBSD continues to ship BLOBs, but you wish to keep them on your campaign against BLOBs. Don't you see the hypocrisy in this action? -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
-----Original Message----- From: Jason Dixon [mailto:jason@dixongroup.net] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:53 AM To: info@praxis123.de Cc: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: No Blob without Puffy On Mar 18, 2007, at 7:06 PM, SW wrote: <snip a formerly private email thread> I read your entire thread, and find it appalling that not only will you take someone's private email and broadcast it, but that it incriminates you on all counts. You admit that FreeBSD continues to ship BLOBs, but you wish to keep them on your campaign against BLOBs. Don't you see the hypocrisy in this action? -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net 1. We have nothing to hide. Theo wrote he would post the mails in public, I told him to do so. There's nothing private in those mails. Everybody has a right to know what was going on, read every bit. 2. I asked Theo if OpenBSD has objections to this campaign. Theo wrote that only BSDs with no Blobs should be on the poster. That's OpenBSD policy. FreeBSD and NetBSD have a different policy. Theo wanted OpenBSD removed from that poster, we did it. Theo claimed that Stop Blob! is OpenBSD "intellectual property" so we changed it to "No Blob!". If OpenBSD wants to improve the "Stop Blob!" campaign please stop complaining and contribute. I wish OpenBSD the very best and hope they will be able to succeed in any way. 3. FreeBSD has Blobs, there's no need for admitting, read the FreeBSD cvs, this is not a secret. 4. You think the only way to fight Blobs is totally abandon them. All the other BSDs have a different opinion. Because we have a different opinion how too achieve something (we all want free documentation) doesn't mean we like Blobs, NDAs or something. Yes, I am a FreeBSD-guy to the bone and I don't like Blobs nor that I am using them. And I will not do any sort of armchair quarterbacking. I will fight and tell the public what's going on and why I don't like it. 5. OpenBSD thinks there should be no possi...
ahh, I finally get it. dry like water hot like ice free like freebsd -- Henning Brauer, hb@bsws.de, henning@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
FreeBSD is released under BSD licence and therefore is free software, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
where is the source to the "free software" nvidia driver?
In epistula a Karel Kulhavy <clock@twibright.com> die horaque Mon, 19 ah, then Wikipedia's definition of 'free' is wrong. The US is a democracy, isn't it? does the majority back the Iraq invasion? :) FreeBSD may be -- as GNU/Linux -- 'free as in beer', you can get it (almost) for free (you have to pay your DSL line/electricity to download it, or media and shipping, etc). But try to brew your own beer -- then GNU/Linux and FreeBSD biogenetic engineers will teach you what 'freedom' is. SCNR
Wikipedia's wrong?!?!?!?!?!?! What about the term 'truthiness'? Don't tell me Wikipedia's wrong about that, too? ;) danno ps- 2006-03-01 The Colbert Report, episode 58 Arianna Huffington challenges host Stephen Colbert on his claim that he had coined the word "truthiness". She cited Wikipedia, claiming that he had merely "popularized" the term. Regarding her source, Colbert, in character, responded: "Fuck them."[2] First non-news nationally-broadcast television program to cite Wikipedia in a debate. -----Original Message----- From: owner-misc@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-misc@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of Timo Schoeler Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 12:17 PM To: Karel Kulhavy Cc: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: No Blob without Puffy In epistula a Karel Kulhavy <clock@twibright.com> die horaque Mon, 19 ah, then Wikipedia's definition of 'free' is wrong. The US is a democracy, isn't it? does the majority back the Iraq invasion? :) FreeBSD may be -- as GNU/Linux -- 'free as in beer', you can get it (almost) for free (you have to pay your DSL line/electricity to download it, or media and shipping, etc). But try to brew your own beer -- then GNU/Linux and FreeBSD biogenetic engineers will teach you what 'freedom' is. SCNR
FreeBSD contributes to the blobification of the world and contains non-free drivers, see: http://www.blahonga.org/UnfreeSoftware.html //art
I thought it was free as in beer, but because of the blobs, not necessarily free as in you can do whatever you want with it... Because what can you do with a blob? Are you allowed to use a blob anywhere you want, in any situation? Are you allowed to crack open a blob and use parts of its code to re-write your own software/drivers? Are you even allowed to have documentation regarding a blob? These are all defined by license restrictions... that restrict your freedom concerning the use of the blob. So IMHO "Free"BSD is only free to obtain... but not fully 'free' to use in any way you want. Please follow the simple formula- License Restriction = Not Free. You've been so involved in this discussion I thought you wouldn't need this simplistic review... or maybe you're just trolling. Danno -----Original Message----- From: owner-misc@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-misc@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of Karel Kulhavy Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:27 AM To: OpenBSD Subject: Re: No Blob without Puffy FreeBSD is released under BSD licence and therefore is free software, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software Amsterdam
Yes, he is just trolling. And for the other mentally challenged who think that FREEbsd has any real freedom, cop this quote from their website: "While you might expect an operating system with these features to sell for a high price, FreeBSD is available free of charge and comes with full source code. If you would like to purchase or download a copy to try out, more information is available." Full source code? For all the blobs? Really? Or do you accept entries in the Obfuscated Code Contest as real, usable, and fixable if needed, Do we look <umop apisdn> from up over?
War is peace, freedom is freebsd... //art
When you install FreeBSD you are bound to install Atheros blob (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I could figure out from freebsd documentation), unless you do a little research and customization before. No warnings pop up to the user, he might even don't know he's running a blob. There's nothing even on the handbook (at least I didn't find it). Where's the freedom? That was more of a threat than a permission.
Wow, talk about missing the point. You have to fight FreeBSD to fight for free documentation, because FreeBSD is fighting to stop anyone from ever getting free documentation. You can't fight for something without also fighting against the people who oppose it. FreeBSD is actively opposing open hardware documentation. They are the enemy. They need to be fought. Adam
What does FreeBSD's policy have to do with anything. It's *YOUR* campaign, you should determine your own policy. Presumably, if your goal is to STOP BLOBs, then why would you include FreeBSD as a Again, why are you being hypocritical by including a BLOB-friendly OS You're wrong. And you're the problem. BY INCLUDING THEM IN YOUR CAMPAIGN AGAINST BLOBS, YOU CONDONE THEIR ACTIONS. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Actually, I think that by listing only blob-distributing OSs on their poster the campaign has a very funny subtextual meaning. -d
| Matthew Wilcox | [PATCH] Fix boot-time hang on G31/G33 PC |
| Vu Pham | Re: [Scst-devel] Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 004/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingPatches |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | [Bug #11799] xorg can not start up with stolen memory |
git: | |
| Li Frank-B20596 | why not TortoiseGit |
| Jon Smirl | ! [rejected] master -> master (non-fast forward) |
| Junio C Hamano | Re: If you would write git from scratch now, what would you change? |
| Wincent Colaiuta | Possible to make a totally empty repository for remote access? |
| Richard Stallman | Real men don't attack straw men |
| Chris | Prolific USB-Serial Controller |
| Douglas A. Tutty | OBSD's perspective on SELinux |
| Nick Guenther | Re: how to clear dmesg outpout |
| Volker Armin Hemmann | build error with 2.6.27.6+reiser4+ehci-hub patch. ERROR: "mii_ethtool_gset" [drive... |
| Wenji Wu | A Linux TCP SACK Question |
| Evgeniy Polyakov | [resend take 2 0/4] Distributed storage. |
| YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / | [GIT PULL] [IPV6] COMPAT: Fix SSM applications on 64bit kernels. |
