Following yesterday’s Linux 6.18 kernel release, GNU Linux-libre 6.18-gnu is out today as the latest release of this free software purist kernel that will drop/block drivers from loading microcode/firmware considered non-free-software and other restrictions in the name of not pushing binary blobs even when needed for hardware support/functionality on otherwise open-source drivers.
With Linux 6.18 there are more upstream kernel drivers dependent upon binary-only firmware/microcode. Among the drivers called out this cycle are the open-source NVIDIA Nova-Core Rust driver as well as the modern Intel Xe driver. Nova-Core is exclusively designed around the NVIDIA GPU System Processor (GSP) usage and thus without its firmware the driver is inoperable. Similarly, with the newer Intel Xe driver depending upon the GuC micro-controller without its firmware the support is also rendered useless.
Keep up the good fight Scoopia.
It is clear from the responses you get that people just do not understand what you are saying. But keep trying.
Imagine the FSF argument at the level of the whole computer. If the computer lets you run software, it has to be free software. But if the computer has all its software in hardware that cannot be programmed or updated, then it is not only totally fine but superior to a Windows computer because Windows is closed software even though the Windows computer let’s you run free software and the non-programmable one does not.
Running on Windows is evil because it is software. But running on closed non-updatable firmware baked into your closed, proprietary hardware is good. That is what the FSF has to say. Programmability bad.
There are two ways to fix the FSF position:
1 - they demand that everything be free including all hardware and all hardware running on it. But that means the purists have to stop using all the closed hardware they enjoy today.
2 - the FSF continues with the position that they are ok with closed hardware and defines “free software” to exclude firmware.
There are three words for a a reason, they are three different things: hardware, firmware, and software.
Defining firmware as software makes no more sense than defining it as hardware. In fact, the latter makes more sense to me and would fix the FSF silliness. But what makes the most sense is to acknowledge that they are all different.
Now that I type this, we need a Free Software Foundation, a Free Hardware Foundation, and Free Firmware Foundation.
The FSF mission makes sense if you exclude firmware. The FFF could preach that free firmware is superior to closed firmware. No argument there. The FHF can push for free hardware. That would be great and we could all push for it. But the FHF could also acknowledge that programmable hardware is superior to non-programmable hardware even when only closed firmware exists. The hardware itself is more open and more free. Basically both the FSF and the FHF could be more relaxed about the other. The FHF could be ok with closed software on open hardware just like the FSF is ok with running free software on closed hardware (their stance today).
Honestly, the above is maybe the only sane solution.
That would allow all of us to:
I bet every one of us would agree to the above. Or at least we could choose which of the three missions to endorse. At least they would all be sane and consistent.
Instead, we get the FSF telling us to ignore the closed hardware behind the curtain while choosing hardware that is more restrictive and less free in the name of avoiding binary blobs. We are being forced to fight a religious war and nobody ever wins those.
Yeah, that would be a much more consistent setup and I agree with everything you said here. I just don’t understand how being less programmable is good, it isn’t, I don’t see any world in which it is unless there is truly NO firmware involved and it’s pure HW.