Very happy to shake hands. Have an excellent week.

Kent does a good PR spin on things

Actually, this is where he lost me. I was a huge fan of bcachefs and wanted it in the kernel. So, I was very much on Kent’s side.

But everything he screwed up he would immediately start trashing everybody else and shitting blame everywhere but himself. It was dishonest and distasteful.

Worst of all, he would also hide behind the “fighting for the users” line and, as a user, all I could see was a guy that was putting way too much effort into ensuring that my needs would not be met (because it was clear he was going to get kicked out of the kernel).

Anyway, I found his “PR” left A LOT to be desired. I mean, if you do not have much information then I guess you could just take his words at face value and be convinced. But if you had basically any prior knowledge, what he was saying just did not pass the smell test.

I agree with pretty much everything else you are saying. And I really wish there was a way of having bcachefs in the kernel.

Sorry buddy. It looks like I somehow replied to the wrong comment.

You misunderstood me (no surprise given the first sentence).

No, the CPU does not become “software” because it has firmware. Which is why it is crazy to disqualify Linux distros as “free” when they include firmware blobs.

Based on your comment here, I would say we completely agree.

[EDIT: Actually, I see my mistake now. I was replying to you. I just forgot to put the /s at the end of my first line. I said “You don’t get it” because “you do get it”.]

Don’t whip out “logical fallacy” if you cannot follow basic logic.

If you want to talk about false equivalence, it is that you are equating “corporations not giving you something” with “corporations taking something from you”. These are NOT the same thing.

The code that the community has access to and the benefits that the code offers the community stand alone. If you write code and contribute it to an Open Source project then the “community” around that project is the primary beneficiary. No other facts are required to support this statement. It is self-evident.

You seem to be suggesting that “your work” and “the benefit” disappear for the community when a corporation writes code that they do not give you. If you did not know that the company did this, would all “the benefit” still disappear? What is the mechanism for that? Is there a disturbance in the force that you are sensitive to that I have not experienced?

The only “benefit” that has been “lost” is the benefit that the corporation added under a non-free license. And it has not been “lost”. It was just not contributed.

I totally get that you do not want companies to benefit from your work and that you want to force contribution from them. That is super fine with me. I get that you think the GPL helps further your goals. Great. Use the GPL. But why do you have to make factually incorrect arguments about permissive licenses in the process? Why not just promote what you think is unique and good about the GPL?

People fall for this shit. I have spoken to so many people that think “they took it proprietary” somehow means the old Open Source code ceases to exist or was somehow taken away. And they think this because of comments like yours. But all the code is still there. It is still as available and useful as it was before. You can still do everything and anything with it that you wanted to do previously. It is still “free”.

I will follow-up on your link later but let me first just thank you sincerely for backing up your opinion. I appreciate it and hope to learn something.

Your hardware is 100% “not free”. It has proprietary firmware. Lots of it. Most of it is for internal chips that you are not even aware of. The hardware you are running is not free. And it has firmware. Clear?

So, your position is that hardware that let’s you upgrade some of this firmware, hardware that let’s you control what bits get put on it, is LESS free than hardware that does not let you see or control that. How greater control is less free is totally beyond me.

And the reason you think this is because you actually have the non-free bits that make up a firmware upgrade. So you tell yourself that not touching this upgrade is a good thing because that upgrade is “proprietary”. Except that you are still running proprietary firmware for the exact same hardware. It needs firmware to work. The firmware you are downloading is just an upgrade.

Either you are running hardware that does not let you upgrade its firmware but that still has firmware nonetheless or you are running hardware with firmware that could be upgraded but you are refusing to upgrade it.

Either way, you have done absolutely nothing to advance your “freedom”. Honestly, it just boggles my mind.

Now, if there really was hardware out there that could be run without using any proprietary bits, that would be a different story. If you were willing to run such hardware, I would buy your ideological purity story. But we all know that this is not the hardware you are running. If you are not typing these comments on x86-64 than it is on ARM. Either way, your words are going through proprietary firmware before they get to me (even if you run these FSF approved distros).

I look forward to the day when truly free hardware exists and I can lose this argument to you. I truly do.

Why does the proprietary firmware in your hardware only suck if it can be upgraded?

You are quite happy running hardware that uses proprietary firmware as long as it does not show it to you. But if it shows it to you then it has to be free software?

I am not saying free software would not be better. Clearly it would be. But saying that not showing the firmware to you is better than showing it to you makes no sense. Please try to make a good argument for why it is ok as long as you don’t see it?

Given that you are willing to run proprietary firmware, why are you not willing to run proprietary firmware that can be upgraded? Got an argument for that makes your “ofc it does” even a little bit valid?

Or are you running on 100% “free” hardware? Because that is for sure not anything based on AMD or Intel and for sure not using any GPU or network card that I have ever heard of.

RISC-V is fighting the good fight. But even there the actual hardware being used today is proprietary, including of course the firmware (accessible or not). And I doubt you are running RISC-V anyway.

I am not sure we are understanding each other. My point is that the FSF counting worse firmware outcomes as wins (like firmware that I cannot even see or update). Their position is that, if it is not a binary blob in your distro, it does not exist and is therefore ok. Whatever. Firmware that can be updated is better than firmware that cannot. The fact that that they disagree is nuts.

Let’s just agree that RISC-V is a good thing. I cannot wait to have Linux running on a truly free ISA. The hardware design needs to be free too though. The ISA is not enough. A proprietary chip is still a proprietary chip even if the ISA is RISC-V.

But, if the ISA is free, at least I am not locked into a proprietary ecosystem because I can also buy my hardware from somebody else and run all my existing software on it.

People underestimate how important RISC-V is on the micro-controller side. Because when you have an NVIDIA GPU, the “firmware” that you use on Linux is just small piece of the puzzle. There are several chips in that card and today you have absolutely no idea how any of them work. You may not even know what ISA they use. In the future (and it is increasingly common today) all those internal chips will be RISC-V chips too.

That depends on your hardware and what software you want to run.

The “normal” case is that Linux is very easy to install and does not require any more skills than other operating systems.

The “worst” case is that something goes wrong or is poorly supported and it really does take a lot of time. Some software may not even be available. This is less frequent than you may expect.

A “common” case is that everything goes fine but you have expertise in a different system and so you have to spend some time ramping up to similar skill levels on Linux. Some people enjoy this part.

The “best” case is that it turns out that Linux fits your needs better than your previous OS and you find out that you were spending a bunch of time fighting the short-comings in the old system. This is more common than you think. There is a reason so many of us use Linux. It is not a requirement. It is a preference.

It is hard to know which of the above experiences you will have until you try it.

Is there some agency out there that I am not aware of that stops you from buying new hardware if you are a Linux user?

One of my favourite things about Linux is that it runs so well on old hardware. I have some pretty old kit that still serves me well.

Bit it runs even better on more powerful hardware. No reason not to upgrade if you have the means.

If somebody says they cannot use wallpapers on other operating systems, just give them a thumbs up and move on.

Why would you want to recruit such a person.

Debain and Fedora are 100% free software operating systems.

Point at a single package in either one that is proprietary software.

Driver firmware does not count. Why? Because that is hardware. The hardware is proprietary regardless and there is proprietary firmware in my hardware regardless of what my OS does.

None of the operating systems listed run on “free” hardware, so arguing about how free the non-free hardware is is meaningless.

Calling Debian and Fedora “closed source” or “black box” because they distribute firmware is madness. Hardware that cannot be updated at all is less “black box”? If that is your view, your opinions hold no weight with me at all.

Fedora and Debian are 100% free operating systems that only include free software.

The FSF does not like them because they include non-free firmware.

The debate is entirely how you define what is software and what is hardware.

Idealism is fine.

Braindead self-denial less so.

How is proprietary firmware that cannot be updated superior?

The line the FSF draws between what is hardware and what is software is total nonsense

The FSF should stick to software so they can maintain the completely hard line that you value. That can apply to actual software.

There should maybe be a Free Hardware Foundation too (maybe a sister or sub-project). If that existed though, they would have to reject pretty much all the hardware that all of us use, including the hardware that the operating systems in this list were designed to run on. Because they are all completely proprietary regardless of their firmware update policies.

I would love a FHF. Let’s all use open schematic, RISC-V systems with open source firmware. Yes please!

But let’s stop doing dumb shit like refusing to update the microcode on our Intel CPU and pretending that is more free instead of just more dumb.

The way why the FSF approaches firmware today is totally braindead (in my view).

No. You don’t get it.

You have to switch to hardware that keeps its firmware safely hidden inside so we can call it “hardware”. If you let the firmware be updated, now it is “software” and it has to be free. But you can run in whatever “hardware” you want and be totally free.

Never upgrading your CPU firmware is a bad idea. Most of the people saying that “works for them” have no idea what they are talking about. Yea, your system runs. Congratulations.

And they are still running on proprietary firmware. Just outdated firmware that they refuse to update.

It is just such utter nonsense. It makes my brain hurt.

We need purists like the fsf.

I do not mind that they are purists. On this issue, my problem is that the line they draw between open and proprietary is an entirely meaningless one and yet the act as absolutist about it as everything else.

I do not mind that they are “pure”. I dislike that what they are saying is wrong (inaccurate, not morally wrong).

The operating system and up seems like a totally resonance place to draw the line for Free Software. I mean “software” is right in the name.

Making a big deal about firmware is asking me to pretend I do not know how hardware works and ignore that I am actually using totally proprietary tech regardless. And classifying hardware that is more open as less free just jumps the shark completely. It hear no evil, see no evil nonsense that demands that I never ask questions or look behind the curtain.

The reduction in proprietary hardware that results from those systems is not meaningful in my view while the massive reduction in security and the greater inconvenience matter.

People have no idea how their hardware works. A card from NVIDIA has not just the NVIDIA drivers but a bunch of internal systems with additional firmware. Even your CPU may have an entire OS on it.

Hardware that allows its firmware to be updated is more open, not less, even if I currently only have proprietary firmware to load on it. And at least it can be updated. Simply not letting me upgrade the firmware does not magically make the hardware more open. Not allowing proprietary firmware for an open source operating system is just not an idea that resonates with me.

Would I prefer fully open source hardware and firmware? Yes. I am happy to see these options are slowly developing. In the meantime, we all run our software on proprietary hardware and drawing the line between hardware and software at a less convenient or less secure point is not making me any more free.

At least, that is my opinion man.

We disagree and you have not addressed my points. So let me stress them.

corporations are allowed publish a modified version of the software while restricting their code modifications from release to the community.

Again, totally agree. Under a permissive license , they do not have to share their work if they do not want to.

Permissive license benefits corporations more than the community.

How? We both have access to the exact same code. We can license our modifications as we wish including GPL or proprietary. They can do the same. We mutually benefit when we choose the original license.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, permissive licenses tend to attract more corporate contribution (and collaboration between corporations). That benefits me a lot.

Google probably has an “extended” version of Clang internally. That is ok with me. I enjoy the substantial code that they do share with me. Same with Microsoft and Apple that collaborate in the same project. I enjoy innovations like Rust and Zig that get built on top. I enjoy FreeBSD that uses it and my main distro Chimera Linux that uses it as well.

I seem to benefit quite a lot.

pikachu face when they realize the corporations are legally permitted to take the fruit of their labor from them

Hard to know how to respond here. Corporations can use you code under any Open Source license, including copyleft (GPL). They do not get one line extra from you because it is permissively licensed.

I guess I will say “pikachu face” when corporations realize that I can take their permissive code and use it for free for any purpose or even compete directly against them! And I can combine their code with any code I want including proprietary and GPL! And I I think preventing this kind of thing is the main reason Red Hat likes the GPL (you know, the biggest Open Source corporation).

My time and effort has been lost. The fruit of my labor has been lost.

How? Real question. How is that statement accurate?

You put time and effort into advancing an Open Source project. All of that code is still there. It can be modified, studied, enhanced, and shared. What code is available to you and what you can do with it is entirely unchanged when a corporation adds proprietary code on top of it. You have not gained their code, true. But you have not lost yours. And you can keep anything they gave you previously (or in the future). Nothing has been lost.

When i contribute or make to a Free Software project, i wish for it to benefit the community

And it does. All “4 freedoms” for example. Permissive or copyleft the same.

If corporations want to release a software based on modified version of my code, I want a guarantee that the modified code to be available to the community too.

Ah. Ok. Ya, permissive licenses don’t do that. It sounds like you will prefer copyleft licenses if this is something you want. Fine of course. But it has nothing to do with your other points. As I said, I fully support the idea of copyleft licenses. You should be free to license your work as you wish.

Do what you want. That is not what everybody wants though. I hope you can respect that.

Corporations that take things and enshittify them

Well, if that is what they are going to do, thank God they did not contribute the enshitification to the Open Source repos. We can go on using the Open Source version because it is better and we like the freedom. Sounds like a point in favour of permissive licenses to me.

all the while they get rich

How does this happen unless their version is better? And how is it better unless it is their changes that made it better?

It sounds like what we are really upset about is companies making better software than us and not letting us use it. That sounds like the exact opposite of what you are trying to say happens.

But again, nobody can take the Open Source away. It is still there untarnished. It may not be enhanced by their efforts but it is not harmed either.

What you are saying is, if they extend the Open Source software, you do not want the Open Source version anymore. You only want theirs. Because only when you use theirs do you lose any freedom. That is true collectively for “the community”.

Your choice your prerogative.

Finally. We agree.

Almost certainly just somebody that distrusts all business by default.

I am all for holding business to account but can we not acknowledge that much of what we love in our lives would not be possible without business?

Kagi is not my friend or anything but they seem like a pretty decent company to me. I have seen no reason to be so cynical about them.