It seems that OpenBSD's Stop the Blob message is getting more recognition:
	http://www.fsdaily.com/stop-blob
As the article points out, better late than never.
Though OpenBSD had been on my list of things to look at for years, it

was the Stop-the-Blob campaign that provided for me the final nudge.
Regards

-Lars

Sorrym but your are misguided. GNU and the Linux kernel hackers have

protested often over all the years. One thing that has holded them back

is that firstly Linus does not seem to care very much about the GNU

principles (but he cared so much to chose GNU license) - another thing

seems to be that many Linux kernel hackers work for companies that

understand their mission as to provide the customers with what they

want. And also, as you all know, open documentation has gone a long way

till today. For long years on many hardware parts free software was not

available.
Richard Stallman protested openly in 2006 more visible than OpenBSD did:

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/rms-ati-protest.html
You are right that OpenBSD and Theo did make reoccuring demands over

many years and one could truely say that OpenBSD has always been more

determined and clear. If Linus would have been an advocate for free

software I am sure things would have been gone in a different direction.
Personally I believe all free operating systems have worked on the

change of the situation. The popularity of Linux has helped to create a

market that has better and more open documentation - and machines that

are made to work perfect with Linux (like eeepc) are more easily made to

work perfectly for OpenBSD and other free OSes.
There are different paths that are walked, but I remember there have

been a lot of quarrels with hardware vendors from the Linux kernel

hackers and often some hackers tried to establish a more strict policy.

My guess is that more Linux hackers today think that they have enough

drivers to push things forward and to use the power to indeed force

hardware vendors to comply. In the past users were more used to beg for

support and documentation and everything that was given - and if it only

where NVIDIA binary drivers where applauded as a great gift. But now

times are changing - maybe some hackers always thought like that but did

not believe in a possible success - but now they do. Linus could hel...
[ message continues ]

I hope that nothing I ever say holds back our developers or community

from doing what is right.  I did not realize that the GNU and Linux
I -- and many of our team -- don't give a rats as about the GNU principles
This other thing is actually the ONLY problem.  It is just business as

usual for the Linux wanna-be-monopoly.  It is that those people work

at companies that sign NDAs to get them documentation, and then noone

else gets the documentation.  Yes, they are already people of a

"higher class", and then why would they spend even a second of their

time making the docs more free.  They feel so special and empowered to

be in the inner clique; so they don't fight a fucked up system.
If you see a fucked up system, do you want to fight it?  Or do you

want to defend the people who don't fight it?  I think you are an
No.  Open documentation has NOT gone a long way at all.  Do you have

full Broadcom 100mb / gigabit ethernet documentation?  Do you have

Intel 100mb / gigabit ethernet chipset programming documentation?  Do

you have documentation for ANY wireless chipsets except the two or

three that we pressured to be free?  If you don't have documentation

for those, what do you have?  What is a long way for you?  Perhaps a
He cried, and nothing happened.  He cried, and then did no reverse

engineering.  He cried, and the only people who listened and agreed

are those who do nothing.
You all think this is all about 2 kinds of video cards.  Video cards,

video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards, video

cards, video cards... cry cry cry.  what about all the rest of the
Personally I believe that all the other free operating systems added
Where do you come up with this load of crap?  The eeepc has an

UNDOCUMENTED ethernet chip and an UNDOCUMENTED wireless chip.  Of

course it works in Linux, because the ethernet vendor gave an

undocumented source code driver to the Linux vendors, and the wireless

vendor gave an undocumented BINARY driver to the Linux vendors, an...
[ message continues ]

Theo de Raadt schrieb:
Many people see me rather as an open source dogmatist. Personally I am

I only know that no hardware I used had been supported and there was no

documentation for it when I started running Linux - and that now many

companies share their information, from companies who did not even know

about FLOSS back then or would have declined to open source anything or

share any information. So, sure there is still also a long way to go,

but to say nothing has happened is also wrong and it would also mean

I cited that because it was falsely stated that Linux hackers have never

tried to change the situation and would do so now for the first time.

They sure havent done enough,  or focused too much on only a few
Actually I have to admit that I just assumed that that would be the
Just for the records: Does this mean that you either count documentation

releases like AMDs,  as in fact NOTHING or  SOMETHING but has only

happened because of OpenBSD?
ACK
It wasnt my intention to anger anybody, but obviously I did. As it turns

out this is seen by some as not only a matter of truth but also

something very emotional. What I basically was trying to say is that

from my recognition this is not the first time Linux hackers have spoken

up. I cant make any prove against the cases you have made because I have

not investigated the matters in depth and it would take quite some time.
Regards,
Thilo
PS: Although I got a full rant from you I  want to say that I have

always liked your standpoint against proprietary drivers and for open

documentation, which was one of the reasons to partly switch to OpenBSD,

because I also felt that Linux hackers did not do and say enough. Anyway.

No my friend it is the other way around.  GNU makes developers slaves to

their users.  In my world I develop code for me; if you like it good for

you; if you don't equally good for you.  I don't owe you anything.
Capitalism can only be enabled by the proper amount of freedom (actual

freedom, not what GNU calls freedom).  You are talking about people that

think there is morality in big words without living up to their side of
You are what I would call an OS "intelligent design" or creationist.
It is true; the best they have done is say, "hey man can you guys please

help?", "oh where do I sign?".  It is like most things GNU, lip service
Exactly, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions!  See you fit right in

with the other GNU fanboys that believe their spiritual leader: blah
That is it should be!  Why are you giving cookies to companies that do

what they are supposed to do?  And how long did it take for AMD to free

up docs?  And why?
Answer those questions and suddenly you'll see it wasn't out of the
They pretend to speak up followed by no action.  In fact GNU fanboys

come to the rescue of closed source companies saying "you should be nice

to them", "you can't expect to get anything done unless you suck up" etc

etc
It was projects like OpenBSD that showed what bold faced liars they were

for them to change their ways.  It was action of the unfriendly kind
They haven't and that so called petition is a complete farce; nothing

will come out of it as usual.  If Linux has a pair he would prohibit

module loading as they do today.  That would turn some heads and get

someone's attention.

You funny, so there is only two options: Eitehr be a fanbox or if you

arent thats the proof you are? How can somebody not be a fanboy then? I

dont really get the "intelligent design" relation. Your reasoning sounds

to me like the ones from conspiracy theorists that say that the denial 
I suppose it took so long because AMD is paranoid like many companies.

The interesting question in this thread would be why they did open up

more at all. Because OpenBSD pushed them to do it? Please share your 
In which cases?
Regards,
Thilo
--

Thilo Pfennig - PfennigSolutions IT-Beratung- Wiki-Systeme

Sandkrug 28 - 24143 Kiel (Germany)

http://www.pfennigsolutions.de/

XING: https://www.xing.com/profile/Thilo_Pfennig -

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tpfennig

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Thilo Pfennig <tp@pfennigsolutions.de>
You will have to do some research, but it's in misc's archives.
--

http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk

"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." --

Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.

"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or

internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory

where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford

learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related

Thilo Pfennig wrote:
 >The popularity of Linux has helped to create a

 >market that has better and more open documentation - and machines that

 >are made to work perfect with Linux (like eeepc) are more easily made to

 >work perfectly for OpenBSD and other free OSes.
Hehe, thanks for the good laugh !
Thilo you already look like a fool.

Please do yourself a favor and get some education before spreading

bullshits on this list.

It's clear you don't know what you are talking about.
Regards,
Mark.

On the contrary, Mark, right now I personally have a higher regard for

Thilo, who actually posted an opinion. All you've done is posted a typical
Perhaps you would do well to heed your own advice...
-Andre

Dear Andre,
We are not at a popularity contest so it's not about having a "higher

regard" for someone, but about technical facts ( --> eepc, documentation).
Nor is it only about having an opinion but about acts.

Acts speak more than words ( --> NDA's).

Do not only listen to what they preach. Look at what they do.
The topic is the fight against blobs.
Please Andre if you are so eager to come to the rescue of ignorant

people, can you enlighten us on the merits of the eepc and the signing

of NDA's in the fight against blobs ?
 > All you've done is posted a typical fanboi response to Theo's reply

to > Thilo. Who are you trying to impress?
You are entitled to your own opinion. I am not trying to impress anyone,

I am actually trying to not participate in the spreading of lies and to

not stay silent when it occurs.
That's why I always let know vendors why I *DID NOT* buy their products

and tell them who got the money.

If more people would do that, to let companies know why they didn't get

the money, things would change.

Instead people prefer to spread bullshits on mailing lists, but that's

their right too.
Acts or *stronger* than opinions Andre.
Stop the blob. Do your part.
Regards,
Mark.

"What a load of crap.  You don't know what you are talking about.

Everything else you said is exactly the same blathering; you are

trying to say happy Linux things but there are no facts to support

that the Linux crew or FSF has done ANYTHING which has gotten

documentation for hardware out there.  They have failed to use their

dominant position to anyone else, and they have done a damn poor job

of even supporting themselves."
That was my thought when reading his missive.  Not enough people in the

Linux community are concerned with anything other than popularity at this

point, popularity that is gained by catering to the masses with stuff that

supports their hardware whether it's secure and reliable or in most cases

not.
Greg

--

Support the Lo Desert Protosites:

http://lodesertprotosites.org
Dethink to survive - Mclusky

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Lars Noodin <larsnooden@openoffice.org>
sorry - the final nudge to do what exactly? Stop the blob? Everybody should

listened a long time ago. I suppose it's good that the message has finally

come out now from the linux developers, but man... havent they let those

blobby fools (and we all know the most famous example) entrench themselves

already?
-jf
this has been my signature for like the longest time now... -->
--

In the meantime, here is your PSA:

"It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not

help."

-- Andrew Fear, Software Product Manager, NVIDIA Corporation

http://kerneltrap.org/node/7228

it will always be unpopular to have the right opinion at first,

especially when it invalidates the work of others.
the cattle only go 'm00000000!!!!!!!!!!' after they've been branded.

serves them right. if you build it wrong they will come... hold on, that

doesn't sound right...
cheers,

Get off my backside and try working with OpenBSD.
-Lars

GPL'd drivers don't help much; some argue that they are part of the problem.

http://www.openbsd.org/papers/opencon06-docs/index.html
Best

   Martin

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:57:24 +0200
I hadn't seen this,

http://www.openbsd.org/papers/opencon06-docs/mgp00020.html
when I wrote this:
``

One significant motive of proprietary concerns that

is cronically missed in these debates is that a lot

of proprietary work is just plain shakey shit glossed

over with extensive test and after-code marchitecture.

Exposing shitty source code is just plain embarrasing,

not to mention an unbounded legal, and therefore

financial, liability.
''
but the point stands.  The number one reason for

secrecy is to provide cover for incompetence and

or failure of due dilligence.

this is good stuff, but... why'd u even mention GPL? I dont see any mention

of GPL in there.
-jf
--

In the meantime, here is your PSA:

"It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not

help."

-- Andrew Fear, Software Product Manager, NVIDIA Corporation

http://kerneltrap.org/node/7228