Following yesterday’s Linux 6.18 kernel release, GNU Linux-libre 6.18-gnu is out today as the latest release of this free software purist kernel that will drop/block drivers from loading microcode/firmware considered non-free-software and other restrictions in the name of not pushing binary blobs even when needed for hardware support/functionality on otherwise open-source drivers.

With Linux 6.18 there are more upstream kernel drivers dependent upon binary-only firmware/microcode. Among the drivers called out this cycle are the open-source NVIDIA Nova-Core Rust driver as well as the modern Intel Xe driver. Nova-Core is exclusively designed around the NVIDIA GPU System Processor (GSP) usage and thus without its firmware the driver is inoperable. Similarly, with the newer Intel Xe driver depending upon the GuC micro-controller without its firmware the support is also rendered useless.

  • far_university1990@reddthat.com
    0·
    9 months ago

    The position of the FSF is that a device whose closed source firmware cannot be upgraded is superior to one that can be upgraded but for which only closed firmware exists.

    Where they say that? They say if ROM firmware, no freedom possible. So outside scope of FSF.

    • LeFantome@programming.dev
      0·
      9 months ago

      “Where they say that?”

      You have a hardware device that is fully proprietary and closed. The firmware cannot be programmed or upgraded.

      The FSF is fine with this hardware. Stop me if you disagree.

      Version two of the hardware above is released. The firmware can now be upgraded. The initial firmware available is closed source. It is actually the exact same firmware used in version one but it now ships as a binary blob. Since the hardware is programable, open source firmware could be written but none yet exists.

      The FSF says that this hardware must be avoided. The binary blob cannot be handled or distributed. Version one of the hardware is still fine and is preferred. Again, stop me if I am wrong. Note, the firmware is the exact same.

      Ok, now answer “where they say that?” for yourself.

      If hardware is out of the scope of the FSF (totally reasonable) then firmware should also be outside of the scope of the FSF.

      Because their stance today is that hardware that is more open is worse. Hardware can be as proprietary and closed as you like as long as you do not make it programmable. If you do, the FSF may have a problem. Insanity.

      Free software is better than non-free software. The FSF and I agree.

      Open firmware is better than closed firmware. This is my view but the FSF only has an opinion when the firmware is upgradable (as you state above). Silly.

      Programmable hardware is always better than non-programmable hardware. That is my view, but the FSF disagrees when no open firmware exists. Dumb.