Curt wrote: > On 2020-01-06, Dan Ritter <d...@randomstring.org> wrote: > > > > I think of "natively" as meaning "supported in the standard > > kernel". Some devices will still require a firmware blob, and > > of those, some will require an unfree firmware blob. > > I consider natively to denote a device (in this case) that works without > the requirement of any software emulation to lead it to believe it is > functioning on a OS different from the host OS.
That's a pretty odd interpretation: very few physical devices have any knowledge of the operating system that they are hooked to, and just want to be addresses according to a given protocol. > If a firmware blob might be considered a software emulation layer of > sorts, I wouldn't know, but still fail to see how or why whether a given > blob is free or not enters into the equation. A firmware blob is hardly ever any sort of emulation; it's usually a program that has to be passed to the device at power-up time in order to run on that device. For example, most graphics processors need a large library of routines to be loaded. The manufacturer occasionally updates these, and sends out a firmware blob. Without one, the graphics won't process. The host operating system doesn't need to run the blob, it just needs to supply the blob to the card. Everything in the kernel is free/libre. If the blob can be created in an open development environment, it can be fixed by people who don't work for the manufacturer. If the blob can not be re-created, but only distributed, Debian calls that non-free. -dsr-
