> Of course there are many firmware blobs. It's an issue, I would prefer not running any proprietary firmware, but I don't see how it would be a bigger issue in BSD land.
It's closed-source, and it's Linux. There is no firmware for BSD.
Of course it's closed-source. I still don't see how it's a bigger issue for the BSDs than for Linux. As in, it's already a big issue for Linux. On Debian they are in a separate section of the repositories (non-free-firmware) that can be disabled. The *BSD could do the same kind of thing. I believe it's up to the *BSD to decide whether they want to compromise this way, but it's the same issue for Linux and for the *BSD. Unless I'm missing something.
> and it's Linux. There is no firmware for BSD.
I don't believe the firmware blobs are Linux-specific, are they? They run on the device, their code is not managed by the main OS on the main CPU of the computer. The device doesn't care about what OS is managing them as long as the OS knows how to speak with them. That the drivers are actually to be written / ported to BSD is another matter.
jraph|1 year ago
Of course it's closed-source. I still don't see how it's a bigger issue for the BSDs than for Linux. As in, it's already a big issue for Linux. On Debian they are in a separate section of the repositories (non-free-firmware) that can be disabled. The *BSD could do the same kind of thing. I believe it's up to the *BSD to decide whether they want to compromise this way, but it's the same issue for Linux and for the *BSD. Unless I'm missing something.
> and it's Linux. There is no firmware for BSD.
I don't believe the firmware blobs are Linux-specific, are they? They run on the device, their code is not managed by the main OS on the main CPU of the computer. The device doesn't care about what OS is managing them as long as the OS knows how to speak with them. That the drivers are actually to be written / ported to BSD is another matter.
ibotty|1 year ago
megapoliss|1 year ago