39
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
39 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
10709 readers
246 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
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