40
GNU Linux-libre 6.18 Neuters More Functionality Due To Blobs With Intel Xe, NVIDIA Nova
(www.phoronix.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
40 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
10629 readers
737 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If I'm not mistaken doesn't the firmware in question get uploaded to the device in question and run on said device not the host CPU? Those devices are already closed and often already running proprietary firmware. I don't really understand the war against uploading blobs to them? I love FOSS and more power to anyone who wants to do this but it seems excessive.
@Scoopta @cm0002 The point is that if everything was open Linux support would be so much better as we would understand the working of the hardware so much better, and we should do everything we can to discourage manufacturers from adopting this stance. FOSS has the great benefit that anyone in the world can improve it, and then share their improvements with everyone else. That makes a better world. Just better.
To be clear, I'm not saying I don't want open hardware, what I'm saying is I don't get the point of allowing closed hardware that doesn't require a firmware blob as opposed to closed hardware that does. That's a very arbitrary and silly line that does nothing useful. They're going on this crusade of "no blobs." But why? There's lots of hardware that already has closed blobs on the HW, but because it's not uploaded by the driver those blobs are ok? You either have to say all closed firmware is bad and we're going to take a stance against any devices which have any amount of closed firmware, even when shipped on ROM in the HW. Or, closed firmware is tolerable so long as the driver is fully FOSS. I love the idea of not having closed firmware but I just don't get the intellectual inconsistency here.
The line is basically programmability. If a device runs "firmware" that can't be changed, that's really just a part of the design of the hardware you bought, so the fact that you can't see or modify the source code is irrelevant- even if you could, it wouldn't give you any more control over the hardware. If it runs firmware that can be changed, it's a programmable computer, and by running proprietary firmware, you're giving up control you would otherwise have over your computer.
I think you missed the point. Imagine 2 devices, device A has a chip with flash memory that contains a binary blob with firmware. Device B doesn't have built-in flash storage so it requires the driver to load the same binary blob during boot. Both devices are reprogrammable and both contain the same closed source firmware. However device A would be allowed but device B would not. From my point of view they are the same device. The fact that you don't know how to reprogram device A doesn't make it more or less proprietary.
The very silly argument the FSF is trying to make is that device A is not programmable because the firmware is baked into the HW effectively making it part of the HW rather than a separate entity. Therefore it's a HW limitation and not proprietary software. Device B on the other hand has proprietary software uploaded to it which is not to be allowed under any circumstances and therefore must be neutered. I call it silly because as you so rightfully point out, the firmware blob could be literally the same exact blob, just stored differently
Exactly. It is about programmability. And that is dumb.
Imagine you have a piece of hardware that is not programmable. The FSF says that hardware is fine. Buy the shit out it and “be free” apparently.
Version 2 of that hardware is released with the new feature that the firmware is upgradable. Of course, only closed firmware updates are available initially. According to the FSF, this programmable hardware must now be avoided. Keep buying the original “more free” version that cannot be programmed.
And if you do have hardware version 2, the FSF says you should at least never update your firmware. Nevermind new features. Security fixes are to be avoided. Because the baked in firmware is more free than the firmware update. It is not that you are not using closed firmware. Of course you are. But you did not change it. So that is better?
It is total nonsense.
If there was a Free Hardware Foundation, a device whose hardware was programmable and whose firmware could be upgraded would clearly be seen as superior to one that was completely closed. It is definitely more open, “more free” hardware even if only closed firmware is available. The hardware is obviously more free. Self-evidently.
But the FSF position is that this “more free” hardware is less free than fully closed options when only closed firmware exists. There is no way for that to make sense unless you move “firmware” into the software bucket and completely ignore the concept of hardware all together. Sorry, but that is dumb.
It is also a good way to roadblock progress towards open hardware. Please stop.
An organization which exists exclusively to advocate for a type of program caring about programmability is not dumb. That seems... kinda obvious? They don't exist to rate the technical superiority or inferiority of hardware devices, they exist to advocate for the simple position that: if a device can be programmed, the user of that device ought to control the program on the device, not some company which happens to hold the copyright over the on-device program.
Um... absolutely not? They say that running proprietary firmware represents an injustice (perpetrated by the copyright holders of the firmware, btw, not the user). Updating the firmware to free software would obviously be great in the eyes of the FSF; upgrading to proprietary firmware would be simply continuing the existing, unjust status quo. You appear to have completely made up this particular position.