[Freedombox-discuss] Intel Compute Stick
Sunil Mohan Adapa
sunil at medhas.org
Wed Jan 14 05:25:17 UTC 2015
On Wednesday 14 January 2015 03:42 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Sunil Mohan Adapa (2015-01-13 21:05:38)
>> On Wednesday 14 January 2015 01:08 AM, Blibbet wrote:
>>> To me it is unsuitable for a FreedomBox due to firmware, which is
>>> probably UEFI-based if hardware comes from Intel.
>>
>> Indeed, proprietary firmware is a deal breaker.
>
> You mean UEFI specifically, or that *any* use of proprietary firmware is
> a deal breaker?
I meant any proprietary firmware including WiFi firmware needed for most
single board computers with WiFi capability (by relying USB WiFi devices).
>
> Makes sense to me to steer free of proprietary code whereever possible,
> and we have enough options not requiring proprietary firmware injected
> at boot time, but I think it is too early to set the bar so high as to
> require no proprietary firmware exist soldered onto the board.
If the proprietary firmware is not executed (or can be disabled), say
for an optional hardware component, then I guess we can live with it.
I do agree that it might be too early though. We can confirm a few free
working options and then look at this direction.
>
> If you mean only UEFI, then why avoid that specifically? Yes, I know
> that Free firmware like Coreboot is better when offered (which is not
> the case currently), but how is e.g. proprietary BIOS better?
>
>
>> We should consider promising FreedomBox users images and devices with
>> only free software and firmware. Especially since we do seem to have
>> some viable hardware options. In the last meeting everyone seem to
>> agree that we should remove non-free repositories from FreedomBox
>> images wherever possible. This would be a step further.
>
> What do you mean by "whereever possible" in above? Is non-free Debian
> repositories less of a deal breaker than UEFI or other pre-loaded
> proprietary firmware? If so, why?
We are currently using non-free repositories for all FreedomBox images,
even VirtualBox images. We only had a brief discussion but from what I
understand the agreement was to remove non-free repositories from images
where it is not needed, such as from VirtualBox and BeagleBone images.
There was no discussion on what to do about hardware that requires
non-free software.
In my opinion, pre-loaded proprietary firmware is as bad as non-free
Debian repositories particularly if that firmware is replaceable.
>
> ****
>
> 60 boards now for sale arguably match or surpass the DreamPlug. Makes
> sense to me to raise the bar higher, but not arbitrarily.
>
> We could add a requirement that the board must not use UEFI (if that is
> sensible - see my question above). That would still leave is with 55
> options.
I believe we should consider generalizing this for any non-free
firmware. The idea is that all software and firmware on FreedomBox
shall be free. If we do this (and pull off a nicely working
FreedomBox), many of our users will appreciate the fully freely aspect.
It will become a strong point for FreedomBox adoption.
>
> We could add a requirement that the board must be Open Hardware. That
> would leave us with 12 options from 3 vendors.
I don't think we should do this. At least, not yet. We should
certainly prioritize Open Hardware though.
--
Sunil
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20150114/69e91d6f/attachment.sig>
More information about the Freedombox-discuss
mailing list