On 2020-10-20, SOUL_OF_ROOT 55 wrote:
Oh it must be release time, the trolls come out.
Note to other readers: please don't bother replying.
https://marc.info/?a=14761972861&r=1&w=2
Hi!
It is written in article "Explaining Why We Don't Endorse Other Systems of
gnu.org:
"BSD systems
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree
programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree
firmware blobs.
Nonfree fi
1:55:21AM -0300, Quantum Robin wrote:
> > > > Are there operating
> > > > systems that ship without blobs?
> > > >
> > > > If yes, what are the operating
> > > > systems that ship without blobs?
> > >
> > > OpenBSD does not s
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:12:06PM -0300, Quantum Robin wrote:
> Em sáb, 13 de abr de 2019 04:23, Chris Bennett <
> cpb_m...@bennettconstruction.us> escreveu:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:55:21AM -0300, Quantum Robin wrote:
> > > Are there operating
> &g
Em sáb, 13 de abr de 2019 04:23, Chris Bennett <
cpb_m...@bennettconstruction.us> escreveu:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:55:21AM -0300, Quantum Robin wrote:
> > Are there operating
> > systems that ship without blobs?
> >
> > If yes, what are the operating
&g
Le 13/04/2019 à 09:23, Chris Bennett a écrit :
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:55:21AM -0300, Quantum Robin wrote:
>> Are there operating
>> systems that ship without blobs?
>>
>> If yes, what are the operating
>> systems that ship without blobs?
> OpenBSD does not
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:55:21AM -0300, Quantum Robin wrote:
> Are there operating
> systems that ship without blobs?
>
> If yes, what are the operating
> systems that ship without blobs?
OpenBSD does not ship with blobs. Ever.
That was a major theme s number of years ago.
Are there operating
systems that ship without blobs?
If yes, what are the operating
systems that ship without blobs?
Libreboot is a free software BIOS replacement, see https://libreboot.org
for details. It is a distribution of Coreboot without
proprietary blobs, including CPU microcode.
All tests were performed with Thinkpad X200, but it should work
for most or all libreboot and autoboot machines.
Since 5.9
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:06 PM, françai s wrote:
> If OpenBSD is the only operating system that is really all free and if
> happen the finish of OpenBSD, how be possible to program and use software
> and hardware really all free?
One idea (of many possible I would guess), grab temlib[1], make
backdoors, blobs and all other evils that are
include in software and hardware that no are really non-free?
How be possible to prevent use of BLOBs?
You have no clue what's in them and what they do, because you can't see
the code from it!
So, putting BLOB in your systems, is a way for any ou
2015-11-27 18:35 GMT-02:00 bofh :
Do you understand your question has been answered over and over again,
and is not relevant here?
Why do you continue by asking about blobs in FreeBSD?
Because I interpreted badly, English is not my native language.
Please forgive me
This did not
7 The kernels of *BSD include nonfree firmware blobs? openbsd-m
2015-11-23 Who teach the true message about the true free softwa openbsd-m
2015-11-19 Whats are the problems caused by licences that are no openbsd-m
2015-11-14 Why OpenBSD uses monolithic kernel? openbsd-t
2015-11
heir kernels include
> nonfree
> firmware blobs.
>
> Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called
> “blobs”,
> and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term “blob” means
> something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD
> d
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM, bofh wrote:
> Do you understand your question has been answered over and over again, and
> is not relevant here?
>
> Why do you continue by asking about blobs in FreeBSD?
>
My guess is, he has a Nero syndrom and is just trying to light a fire, b
Il 27/nov/2015 21:43, "bofh" ha scritto:
>
> Do you understand your question has been answered over and over again, and
> is not relevant here?
>
> Why do you continue by asking about blobs in FreeBSD?
>
Because he's a troll.
Stop feeding him, please.
Em 27-11-2015 18:35, bofh escreveu:
> Why do you continue by asking about blobs in FreeBSD?
Troll Detected. Troll Fed. End of Thread.
Do you understand your question has been answered over and over again, and
is not relevant here?
Why do you continue by asking about blobs in FreeBSD?
> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that:
>
> "FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining
> nonfree
> programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree
> firmware blobs.
> Nonfree firmware programs used with Lin
On 11/27/15 17:32, français wrote:
I wanted ask the following:
The FSF say the true about *BSD when say that *BSD include instructions for
obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system?
Please start with http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39 (the OpenBSD 3.9
theme song), and look at the da
Theo de Raadt wrote
>> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that:
>>
>> "FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining
>> nonfree
>> programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include
>> nonfree
>> firmware
> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that:
>
> "FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree
> programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree
> firmware blobs.
> Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux,
On 11/27/15 16:33, français wrote:
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that:
"FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree
programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree
firmware blobs.
The FSF should have access to peopl
enBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree
:programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree
:firmware blobs.
:
:Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called
:???blobs???,
:and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term ???blo
Drivers run on the CPU, firmware runs on the peripheral device (e.g. the
network card or hard drive). BSDs reject driver blobs because they run
with the same privilege and in the same address space as the rest of the
kernel. Because of this, they can meddle with or corrupt the kernel.
Before
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) says that:
"FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree
programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree
firmware blobs.
Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called
“blobs”
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 08:38:45PM -0700, Rob wrote:
> On 10/19/06, Darrin Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:34:49AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > 2006/10/18, ICMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it bene
On 10/19/06, Darrin Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:34:49AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > 2006/10/18, ICMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit
> card
> > > > companies to have open source communities ma
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:34:49AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > 2006/10/18, ICMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card
> > > companies to have open source communities making their drivers better?
> >
> > One theory is that the cards ar
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Why do some people feel the need to make up utter bullshit defences
for the vendors, when there is not one ounce of fact to back it up?
Why?
I think that might be my fault. When I ASKED earlier this month if it
was a possible excuse, it might have been picked up and run wi
> 2006/10/18, ICMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card
> > companies to have open source communities making their drivers better?
>
> One theory is that the cards are so full of patent violations that
> opening up the docs would lead to a
$Docs < $Damage < $Sales
This is always true. See the following:
while (runAround)
{
$sales = getSales();
if ($docs){
$costToDevelop = false;
}else{
$costToDevelop = true;
}
if ($costToDevelop){
$costToFix = ($costToDevelop * 2);
$p0wned = true;
2006/10/18, Damian Wiest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 01:40:19PM +0200, Martin Schr?der > > 1280x1024. And
ATI is as closed as NVIDIA, but the drivers are even
> more broken.
Do you have more details regarding ATI versus NVIDIA video cards? From
I just can report tests from m
2006/10/18, ICMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card
companies to have open source communities making their drivers better?
One theory is that the cards are so full of patent violations that
opening up the docs would lead to a lot of court
Bambero wrote on Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:36:15PM +0200:
> open source community answer:
> http://www.petitiononline.com/nvfoss/petition.html
Did you take the time to actually read that?
It asks for source code (instead of documentation)
and calls the current solution implemented by Nvidia
"the b
Damian Wiest wrote:
If you're looking to add dual, or triple-headed support or connect your
system to a television or A/V receiver, good luck. I've had nothing but
problems trying to find a suitable card with BSD support. I'm currently
trying a Radeon 9600XT which some people have claimed wil
open source community answer:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nvfoss/petition.html
On 10/18/06, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://news.com.com/Exploit+code+released+for+Nvidia+flaw/2100-1002_3-6126846.html
I just wanted to say... "Told you so".
Quite amusing.
Of course we know th
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 01:40:19PM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote:
> 2006/10/18, Sam Fourman Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any*
> >video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most*
> >of the stuff desktop users want?
>
> N
On Oct 18, 2006, at 2:25 PM, Paul Irofti wrote:
> I'm guessing the main restrain (as far as docs are implied) are the
> design flaws found in their hardware. This can destroy a reputation
> faster than a "minor" exploit that people don't really care about
> because "It could never affect me, what
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 16:56, ICMan wrote:
> I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card
> companies to have open source communities making their drivers
> better?
You're looking at it all wrong.. making drivers implies putting out
docs. Docs will describe the act
On 10/18/06, Matthew Weigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> intel, s3, older radeons, older matrox
Do any of them work in OpenBSD? I thought DRI was required, and not
supported in OpenBSD.
no, but they are all capable of working. the drivers are all open source.
On 10/18/06, bofh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/18/06, Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But intel's bad by definition :) Older radeons - those include the laptops
with the mobility chips? (MIne's M300, so, probably not).
not sure. ati parts are referenced by a large mix of numbers (
Ted Unangst wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Sam Fourman Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any*
>> video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most*
>> of the stuff desktop users want?
>
> intel, s3, older radeons, older matrox
On 10/18/06, Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/17/06, Sam Fourman Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any*
> > video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most*
> > of the stuff desktop users want?
>
> int
On 10/18/06, Nick Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/18/06, Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/17/06, Sam Fourman Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any*
> > > video card vendor that would support Full 3D accel
On 10/17/06, Sam Fourman Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any*
video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most*
of the stuff desktop users want?
intel, s3, older radeons, older matrox
On 2006/10/18 09:56, ICMan wrote:
>
> I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card
> companies to have open source communities making their drivers better?
> They get free labour, a larger source of talent, and more stable
> drivers.
Why on earth would they want stabl
I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card
companies to have open source communities making their drivers better?
They get free labour, a larger source of talent, and more stable
drivers. Their driver developers can take ideas from ports of their
drivers to put into
On 2006/10/18 13:40, Martin Schrvder wrote:
> Not really. Matrox is open, but the cards don't do DVI higher than
> 1280x1024.
They are not.
They used to be, but started closing some parts in the dualhead G550
era (istr some feature upgrade being sold as a software-only update
which may be the rea
2006/10/18, Sam Fourman Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any*
video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most*
of the stuff desktop users want?
Not really. Matrox is open, but the cards don't do DVI higher than
1280x1024.
> Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any*
> video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most*
> of the stuff desktop users want?
> Maybe the AMD / ATI merger will yield some results in the future, if i
> am not mistaken AMD has been a *decent* company a
On 18/10/06, Nico Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, there's a lot of New Age bullshit floating around. It's your choice
to look beyond that and see the practical implications of it.
They do tend to get everywhere, don't they...
MC
Hi Eliah,
This discussion is starting to lean not to OpenBSD but life in
general. ;-)
> "Karma" and "the law of abstraction" are very abstract.
In my view, they are most certainly not. It's the law of attraction, btw,
not abstraction.
For instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Attraction
Theo de Raadt wrote:
But Craig, it's the same with women. They'll only hang out with you
if they feel there is enough positive vibe in you. And since you so
clearly show that you are a pessimist at heart, you're out of luck
too!
If you keep saying something good won't happen -- well then you ca
Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> I just spent an hour ssh'ing from Linux box to Linux box,
> editing XF86Configs and restarting X servers. That's hardly fun
> if the hardware configurations vary such that you must decide
> for each case whether Driver "nv" or Driver "vesa" is the way to
> go...
I hope you
On 10/18/06, Nico Meijer wrote:
Hi Girish,
> > If you keep saying something good won't happen -- well then you can
> > bet it won't happen.
>
> I don't get your point Theo.
Search the net for "karma" and the "law of attraction". Perhaps that will
give you some insight in what -I think- Theo mea
Hi Girish,
> > If you keep saying something good won't happen -- well then you can
> > bet it won't happen.
>
> I don't get your point Theo.
Search the net for "karma" and the "law of attraction". Perhaps that will
give you some insight in what -I think- Theo means.
HTH... Nico
Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any*
video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most*
of the stuff desktop users want?
Maybe the AMD / ATI merger will yield some results in the future, if i
am not mistaken AMD has been a *decent* company as far as
> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:32:19 -0500
> From: "Sam Fourman Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> [Nvida exploit]
>
> Would this in anyway help the OpenBSD devlopers ongoing campaign to
> get documentation from Nvidia?
Probably not, because a cursory glance at what the Linux community
thinks about this
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 08:22:23PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > As I see it, the only way we are going to get documentation, is for it
> > to make economic sense for nVidia.
> > Cost of documentation / Perceived loss of IP ($) through documentation
> > (+ corporate inertia) must be less than the
hose of our workstations being vulnerable -
only to be asked the following question: But we will certainly
return to Driver "nvidia" as soon as Nvidia releases a fix for
this bug?This question got asked even though
i forwarded Linus' quote on blobs there - thanks again to the
guy who
> > Would this in anyway help the OpenBSD devlopers ongoing campaign to
> > get documentation from Nvidia?
> >
>
> As I see it, the only way we are going to get documentation, is for it
> to make economic sense for nVidia.
> Cost of documentation / Perceived loss of IP ($) through documentation
> Would this in anyway help the OpenBSD devlopers ongoing campaign to
> get documentation from Nvidia?
>
As I see it, the only way we are going to get documentation, is for it
to make economic sense for nVidia.
Cost of documentation / Perceived loss of IP ($) through documentation
(+ corporate i
Would this in anyway help the OpenBSD devlopers ongoing campaign to
get documentation from Nvidia?
Sam Fourman Jr.
On 10/17/06, Nick Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When I read that headline earlier today I thought to myself "I bet Theo will
be getting a chuckle from this when he reads it"
O
Original message
>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:30:53 -0600
>From: Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: blobs are bad
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>More problems like this will be exposed, and it is my hope that
>vendors who refuse to participate in th
When I read that headline earlier today I thought to myself "I bet Theo will
be getting a chuckle from this when he reads it"
On 10/17/06, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> http://news.com.com/Exploit+code+released+for+Nvidia+flaw/2100-1002_3-6126846.html
>
> I just wanted to say... "
http://news.com.com/Exploit+code+released+for+Nvidia+flaw/2100-1002_3-6126846.html
I just wanted to say... "Told you so".
Quite amusing.
Of course we know this is not the last time this will happen.
More problems like this will be exposed, and it is my hope that
vendors who refuse to participat
On 9/5/06 4:18 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Allowing blobs is the equivalent of eating fast food; it is
convenient now but 10 years from now your ass wont fit through the
door.
I don't know why but I feel someone has won here, no idea which
contest it was or what but this quote will h
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 02:52:01PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yet another example for what happens when people use BLOBs (it's *so*
> convenient):
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/UPDATING?rev=1.307&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
eithe
Hi,
yet another example for what happens when people use BLOBs (it's *so*
convenient):
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/UPDATING?rev=1.307&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
Ciao,
Kili
blob drivers is questionable, is it
possible to effect something like a systrace-ing of those blobs to prevent them
from running amok? i would imagine this is not possible if the driver were a
kernel, not userland, thing.
not possible. a hardware driver, no matter if running in kernel or
in
questionable, is it
possible to effect something like a systrace-ing of those blobs to prevent them
from running amok? i would imagine this is not possible if the driver were a
kernel, not userland, thing.
further explanation of why this wouldn't work or would be a bad idea if it would
work is apprec
72 matches
Mail list logo
