https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/
thoughts?
feeling distrust with past intel foo far...
they call them shelf an manufacturer yet it also sounds like they hire a company to actually make/design the phone (?). hence its not open hardware as they don’t own the designs.
imx6 SOC so i faster then neo900 i think? (got the learn about the web of TI SOCs and familys)
neo900/gta0* i think do a bit more, like modem antenna hard disconnect as well has mosfet disconnect of power to modem.
wifi/bt looks like it will have non-free firmware. Is it really not possible for them to use atk free firmware wifi IC?
i guess/hope at least it will have free gps firmware :) unlike every other mainstream smartphone.
like that doing the VOIP for calls and the seamless connection to a mobile phone number. something ive been thinking about for my self :) but there service sounds easier :).
Will it be RYF? Probably not. Will it be better than anything we have now? Absolutely.
Will it be better than Pyra or Neo900? Depends on your use case. Pyra will probably ship sooner.
On 23/09/17 17:38, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
Will it be RYF? Probably not. Will it be better than anything we have now? Absolutely.
yep
Will it be better than Pyra or Neo900? Depends on your use case. Pyra will probably ship sooner
mmh yea. some of the same neo900 devs are working on pyra so when prya is finished i guess neo900 will get more attention :)
been wondering about a gpd pocket lately. non-free bios, wifi but 8GB ram laptop for £340 from china is quite tempting. a higher power laptop would be useful... plus i can "dock"/connect the gpd poket into my eoma68 laptop via breakout card if i want to work on a larger screen,KB,touchpad.
Snag is yucky intel bios :( and crappy wifi ant design. Battery I guess will require a hack around for a replacement as i imagine it won’t be easy to get a same size one. On the bright side there are good sized battery test points so one can by the looks of it, solder wires and stick a 18650/lipo battery pack on the outside of the case :)
Pyra looks like smaller keyboard? Far less powerful but better battery life/efficiency. Bit more ££ but is libre hardaware with again non-free but better designed wifi. pyra with 4g + bluetooth headset + if really good power saving is implemented, could then be a kind of phone?
That pocket thing looks kind of cute. Light-years outside of my price range for anything (let alone my little tinkerin' budget) -- but cute. I hadn't heard about that one before... I like it, even if I can't afford it... (silly me, I like tiny computers of basically all sorts)
Shameless (and long-winded, sorry) plug...
I'm developing a mostly-open-source (not libre, sorry) laptop called the AnyTop. ("Mostly" because it runs Windows, because I /really/ don't want to have to tutor people in Linux with this thing... sorry, everybody, but the vast majority of this world runs on The Redmond Monstrosity. It just does.) The idea is that anyone in the world who isn't blind and can use a knife can follow the instructions and build their own laptop from said instructions. The only tool you need is a smallish, non-serrated sharp blade of some sort.
For the record, I'm not planning on distributing anything /other/ than instructions, and (a) printing them requires color capability on the printer side and (b) the requirement of being language independent means that those instructions wind up looking a bit like something you'd see on the back of a cereal box, and for most "first world" people they're likely to be a bit inscrutable at first glance. Numbers are represented as hands with fingers held up, for example, and sizes are expressed in common objects and parts thereof (such as a sheet of paper or a CD), rather than customary units (inches, cm, etc)...
Full disclosure: there's this blog called Hackaday ("hack" as in "hacking together a fix" not as in "l0lzerz I'm hacking your comp00ter box") that has a 'projects' sub-site and a yearly contest for grand ideas and the like -- I have entered the AnyTop in that contest, and am keeping a log on the 'projects' side of the place as part of that -- although I don't expect to win... I rarely win anything, pretty much period, and especially not contests...
Direct-image link to a concept illustration of a final, constructed AnyTop, complete with cheesy logo --> https://i.imgur.com/iDygSE0.jpg
If there's meaningful interest here, and if Luke says it's on-topic (or at least mostly so), I'll link to the instructions, once they're done, in a post on this list. I'm also willing to mail a copy to anyone who wants one, although international mail will be First-Class (not tracked, no delivery guarantee, and slow as heck) unless the recipient wants to pay for it, and in all cases I can only mail to places the US Gov't will allow me to...
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 05:19:13PM +0100, Alexander Ross wrote:
https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/
thoughts?
feeling distrust with past intel foo far...
they call them shelf an manufacturer yet it also sounds like they hire a company to actually make/design the phone (?). hence its not open hardware as they don’t own the designs.
That can very well depend on the details of the contract. If it is work for hire they *will* ow the designs.
-- hendrik
WHAT CPU WILL BE USED I.MX6 OR I.MX8? We are using the i.MX6, unless/until we know we can use i.MX8.
?? power-hungry Cortex A9?? worra??
WILL YOU BE SEEKING FSF RYF ENDORSEMENT? We will constantly keep FSF up-to-date on the hardware and software, our current understanding is any non-free kernel firmware needed for RF chips will not meet the RYF qualifications today
that's right boyzngirlz, it don't. so... why are you calling your company "purism", again?
*sigh*....
On 09/23/2017 02:49 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
WHAT CPU WILL BE USED I.MX6 OR I.MX8? We are using the i.MX6, unless/until we know we can use i.MX8.
?? power-hungry Cortex A9?? worra??
WILL YOU BE SEEKING FSF RYF ENDORSEMENT? We will constantly keep FSF up-to-date on the hardware and software, our current understanding is any non-free kernel firmware needed for RF chips will not meet the RYF qualifications today
that's right boyzngirlz, it don't. so... why are you calling your company "purism", again?
*sigh*....
they seem to think we believe their fairy dust will just magically take all the non-free blobs/firmware off.
How amusing... but also annoying at the same time.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:03 AM, zap calmstorm@posteo.de wrote:
WILL YOU BE SEEKING FSF RYF ENDORSEMENT? We will constantly keep FSF up-to-date on the hardware and software, our current understanding is any non-free kernel firmware needed for RF chips will not meet the RYF qualifications today
that's right boyzngirlz, it don't. so... why are you calling your company "purism", again?
*sigh*....
they seem to think we believe their fairy dust will just magically take all the non-free blobs/firmware off.
How amusing... but also annoying at the same time.
they'll manage to convince a lot of people. what particularly pisses me off is that they could actually sell a variant *without* WIFI and BT - at all - and get RYF Certification as a result - and the people who then really wanted it could use the OTG port in Host Mode and plug in an RYF-Certified ThinkPenguin TP150N (AR9271).
nggggggh!
On 09/23/2017 07:06 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:03 AM, zap calmstorm@posteo.de wrote:
WILL YOU BE SEEKING FSF RYF ENDORSEMENT? We will constantly keep FSF up-to-date on the hardware and software, our current understanding is any non-free kernel firmware needed for RF chips will not meet the RYF qualifications today
that's right boyzngirlz, it don't. so... why are you calling your company "purism", again?
*sigh*....
they seem to think we believe their fairy dust will just magically take all the non-free blobs/firmware off.
How amusing... but also annoying at the same time.
they'll manage to convince a lot of people. what particularly pisses me off is that they could actually sell a variant *without* WIFI and BT - at all - and get RYF Certification as a result - and the people who then really wanted it could use the OTG port in Host Mode and plug in an RYF-Certified ThinkPenguin TP150N (AR9271).
nggggggh!
I see your point. How are people that stupid...
:looks at the 2016 election then vomits into a bag:
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 7:19 PM, zap calmstorm@posteo.de wrote:
:looks at the 2016 election then vomits into a bag:
While I'm not much of one for conspiracy theories, even I'm forced to admit that there's growing evidence that those of us here in the USA *ahem* had a little help with that one...
I will state that I voted for the intelligent and articulate but wonky* candidate, and not the obnoxious and incompetent hot-air balloon that we wound up with...
As an aside -- Luke, in my earlier windbag post in this thread, I asked your permission about something, albeit a little indirectly (I'm not going to repeat myself here, so as to avoid spamming)... I've not seen a reply yet, which might be me, or it might not. Did you miss my request, or did I miss your reply...?
*For the international crowd: in American slang, labeling someone as a wonk is the political science equivalent of the tech community referring to someone as a geek or nerd.
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 07:19:15PM -0400, zap wrote:
On 09/23/2017 07:06 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:03 AM, zap calmstorm@posteo.de wrote:
How amusing... but also annoying at the same time.
they'll manage to convince a lot of people. what particularly pisses me off is that they could actually sell a variant *without* WIFI and BT - at all - and get RYF Certification as a result - and the people who then really wanted it could use the OTG port in Host Mode and plug in an RYF-Certified ThinkPenguin TP150N (AR9271).
nggggggh!
I see your point. How are people that stupid...
Let them know. maybe they'll build that TP150N (whatever it is) in instead of whatever they are planning now.
-- hendrik
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Hendrik Boom hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 07:19:15PM -0400, zap wrote:
Let them know. maybe they'll build that TP150N (whatever it is) in instead of whatever they are planning now.
it's a standard 802.11n USB WIFI IC that's based on ath9k. the idiot team at qualcomm (qualcomm bought atheros then fired all the management and engineers) is *terminating* that chip... and because it's a standard USB WIFI IC it's simply not designed for mobile use. i.e. as far as standard "mobile" users are concerned it would represent a *massive* drop in perceived value due it absolutely eating battery life.
plus, you tend to get a feel quite quickly for companies that are... well... self-promoting and out for sensationalism, and which ones are... genuine and up-front. basically i don't _want_ to have a conversation with them.
l.
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 07:49:13PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
WHAT CPU WILL BE USED I.MX6 OR I.MX8? We are using the i.MX6, unless/until we know we can use i.MX8.
?? power-hungry Cortex A9?? worra??
WILL YOU BE SEEKING FSF RYF ENDORSEMENT? We will constantly keep FSF up-to-date on the hardware and software, our current understanding is any non-free kernel firmware needed for RF chips will not meet the RYF qualifications today
that's right boyzngirlz, it don't. so... why are you calling your company "purism", again?
*sigh*....
For every purest of the purists there is someone even more purist.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Tzafrir Cohen tzafrir@cohens.org.il wrote:
For every purest of the purists there is someone even more purist.
ohmmmmmmmmmm....
but seriously: ethical decision-making is an on-off thing. it's either black - you made an ethical decision - or it's white - you made an UNethical decision. you chose CONVENIENCE over making a stand, and saying "no further. the line is HERE".
the problem is... people *really* don't like it when you point that out... because people don't normally think in hard black-and-white. which is why you get people going completely off-the-fucking-wall NUTS during question-time at dr stallman's talks. they accuse him of hypocrisy, shout and almost scream at him... just so that they can mentally dismiss everything he said for the past 105 minutes and be able to walk out in a huff.
in a way, software libre - the whole FSF thing - is basically the modern-day equivalent of the black rights, slavery freedom / rights, women's rights, and any civil liberties movement you care to name. it's just completely unappreciated as such.
l.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
but seriously: ethical decision-making is an on-off thing. it's either black - you made an ethical decision - or it's white - you made an UNethical decision. you chose CONVENIENCE over making a stand, and saying "no further. the line is HERE".
No it's not. People need upgraded computers and the x200 libreboot supply will eventually run out. This is not convenience, at some point something becomes slow enough that you can't effectively get your job done. Purism laptops represent a decent offering for security etc and afaik there is no other laptop that cuts power to the camera like they do. For 99% of the users the only argument for libreboot and free firmware is security. Purism is trying to tacle that requirement and has been fairly sucessful so far. I would expect the same to happen with the phones. Afaik the only blob existing there will be for the baseband which will be burned into rom on a separate chip with no access to main memory and a killswitch. So it's pretty much as good as it gets given existing regulations and I don't see why having a phone that can do all this stuff is a bad idea. Heck having a phone with backdoors that can run a regular gnu stack is better than what we have right now. Purists that will tell you to just not use a phone because we are required by regulations to run those few kb of closed rom code have no place in this discussion honestly because they offer nothing to the table for a solution. People need phones and having a phone with some blobs allows for much more practical freedoms than having no phone at all.
the problem is... people *really* don't like it when you point that out... because people don't normally think in hard black-and-white.
And they shouldn't. Thinking in black and white has been the sole reason for many many attrocities and racism in human history. I am really dissapointed to read this coming from you.
which is why you get people going completely off-the-fucking-wall NUTS during question-time at dr stallman's talks. they accuse him of hypocrisy, shout and almost scream at him... just so that they can mentally dismiss everything he said for the past 105 minutes and be able to walk out in a huff.
rms should seriously work on his presentation. You don't change someone's world view in one fell swoop, you do it 1% at a time. I felt exactly the same when I first read about rms and I was so repelled by him that I almost just wipped my fresh first time ubuntu installation. The only reason I persisted was for reasons of my own character. Unfortunately we don't have the technical means he has with an entire organisation supporting him technically and a lot of us have hardware requirements that mandate blobs. This is why projects like this, riscv and the talos project are so important. The free culture is still too left on the overton window for the average joe. So it is my personal opinion that the FSF should find a different speaker that can understand his/her audience better than rms does. Let alone the fact that pretty much all his talks are to the wrong audience. Think about it, you have to already be into FOSS to learn of rms, those that need to learn about it are the ones that are not into it. In adition to this I don't have time to figure out every stupid way microsoft breaks compatibility with .docx and .odt, if it doesn't work on libreoffice I upload it on google docs and download the converted form. I just don't have time for this and the end result is all that matters.
in a way, software libre - the whole FSF thing - is basically the modern-day equivalent of the black rights, slavery freedom / rights, women's rights, and any civil liberties movement you care to name. it's just completely unappreciated as such.
As I said, the free culture movement is still too left on the overton window, but people are getting more and more fed up with the current situation( i.e. drm, copyright on various fan-made content from series etc), so it might improve in the near future. We just got our first FOSS game engine with enough patreon money for a developer to work full time on it. CC is a also a big deal with good high quality content published with it. Countries are willing to host websites that directly violate copyright laws because there is practical demand for it. The EU can try as hard as they want to hide the fact that piracy does not affect revenue streams but the reality is the only reasons publishers push against piracy with the petty argument of "paying the creator" is so free culture does not get the chance to become a more mainstream acceptable idea. So things are changing and the change is accelerating. People want better treatment on their software and you can see it by the marketshare changes, and with time it will improve. But it is BY NO MEANS a black or white scenario.
It would also help if rms would realise his position at the fsf as a public entity and did not advocate pedophilia without any compelling scientific arguments on his personal website.
bill, john, i am fascinated by the insights both of you have, also no i don't thnk in black or white - i used to, up until i was around... 22 or 23. it was a very... strange time. i'll re-read what both of you wrote later and reply after some thought ok?
l.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net writes:
bill, john, i am fascinated by the insights both of you have, also no i don't thnk in black or white - i used to, up until i was around... 22 or 23. it was a very... strange time. i'll re-read what both of you wrote later and reply after some thought ok?
We can stick with thinking in terms of black and white when it comes to whether some software is free or not. It is either free or it isn't. The four freedoms make that easy.
Then it can be hard on people to call them lazy by not making sure their machines are 100 % RYF because of convenience. But escaping ms office is not hard, there is not much convenience to gain there in place of freedom, only lock-in. On the machine side I would guess political activism is what is required.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/2017 10:10 AM, Tomas Nordin wrote:
We can stick with thinking in terms of black and white when it comes to whether some software is free or not. It is either free or it isn't. The four freedoms make that easy.
Then it can be hard on people to call them lazy by not making sure their machines are 100 % RYF because of convenience. But escaping ms office is not hard, there is not much convenience to gain there in place of freedom, only lock-in. On the machine side I would guess political activism is what is required.
In some ways I agree, and in others I disagree here. No, it isn't always laziness to not have an RYF machine to work on. Whether anything, be it software, machine, or component of a machine is free or not is a black and white issue. A whole machine, however, or a whole distro, also has shades of grey.
One way to think of it to pull from the software side because there exists a better spectrum to reference, is to imagine all the OS/OS distros lined up along an 8-bit greyscale colour bar, grading by how much of the OS is free. If what you care about is fully free, then you're going to apply a threshold to that colour bar to find which ones are a suitable option. Nevertheless, someone running Debian or even Ubuntu, is, when you look at the greyscale version, obviously much closer to running free software than someone running Windows.
The same is true of machines. As pointed out, right now there isn't much of anything in modern-day technology for full-fledged desktop/laptop (I believe that's actually nothing) that is fully free, and the same for phones. It isn't everyone who has a viable option to use long-outdated hardware or do without a "smart" phone. Further, the chasm is in many cases too wide to bridge in a single leap.
Where I see the problem with Purism is that their advertising seems to try to sound further along than they really are in supplying RYF-grade hardware. ThinkPenguin, on the other hand, (from whom I bought my current laptop) appears to be providing hardware relatively similarly far from RYF, but because they make very clear what they do and don't have to offer, they have never to my knowledge, taken much heat for it. Paradoxically, if I've heard correctly, Purism has managed to free at least one relatively recent processor from Intel's ME, quite possibly due to the very controversy they have stirred up with their marketing.
As for how to get more free HW, I think efforts like Talos, EOMA, and even Purism and ThinkPenguin are the best way forward. I wish the FSF would do a bit more to promote upcoming hardware that can at least be expected to be a step beyond what is currently available. It is Talos in particular I'm thinking of here. When I wrote them after the close of the Talos campaign on Crowd Supply, they indicated that the FSF hadn't seemed very interested in working with them, and more interested in a legislative approach. I think this is a shame, because that kind of approach, if successful, is only going to get a lot of people mad at them. Figure out how to promote open hardware so that it ends up taking the market, and people will soon almost forget that the world used to be different.
These are my thoughts right now, and may be worth no more than you paid for them.
Tor
- -- Tor Chantara http://www.fineartmarquetry.com/ 808-828-1107 GPG Key: 2BE1 426E 34EA D253 D583 9DE4 B866 0375 134B 48FB *Be wary of unsigned emails*
"Tor, the Marqueteur" marqueteur@fineartmarquetry.com writes:
As for how to get more free HW, I think efforts like Talos, EOMA, and even Purism and ThinkPenguin are the best way forward. I wish the FSF would do a bit more to promote upcoming hardware that can at least be expected to be a step beyond what is currently available. It is Talos in particular I'm thinking of here. When I wrote them after the close of the Talos campaign on Crowd Supply, they indicated that the FSF hadn't seemed very interested in working with them, and more interested in a legislative approach. I think this is a shame, because that kind of approach, if successful, is only going to get a lot of people mad at them. Figure out how to promote open hardware so
Is that really fair? Being mad at FSF for not engaging enough in hardware project details, they were all about software until recently. While I agree fully that those projects are one good and important [1] way to go, I doubt that they will be the final warranty for ethical hardware for all users. How would that come to be? Sooner or later you mean, there will one or more projects shipping such spiffy, shiny, low cost and fully ethichal devices so they will, by the law of supply and demand, take over the world. Let's hope your are right.
For me, even the effort of giving out this RFY certificate is utterly impressing. I cannot even imagine the work it must take to do that, it is far beyond the engineering I am used to. It is a kind of auditing that would occupy large staff if I would estimate, all highly skilled in computer electronics and all things around it. But if there was proper legislation about this ethics, there will be a need for such auditing. See? FSF is already putting an example to it.
[1] for technical development and proof of concepts
Bill Kontos wrote :
Purists that will tell you to just not use a phone because we are required by regulations to run those few kb of closed rom code have no place in this discussion honestly because they offer nothing to the table for a solution.
this bit here struck a chord with me.
they are offering you one of the best possible solutions available; if not the best (until one of us finds a couple trillion dollars to revamp telephony protocols and devices around the world): cutting through telco/OEM profits until they understand they will only make money by respecting our privacy and freedom.
it's like consumerism long made us forgot that delaying a bad deal is also an option, most of the time. life saving procedures can't wait a decade or two, but mobile communications?, hell yeah. you don't get to call boycotters on a lack of solutions, when it's the refusal to join them precisely what undermines the effectiveness of their solution.
as a cellphone non-user and die-hard libre software acolyte, i don't see the Purism people as enemies. they only need to reword their marketing to be a bit less disingenuous. they speak the language of the purists; this is how we know they _are_ aware that their products will fall short of something like a RYF cert.
And they shouldn't. Thinking in black and white has been the sole reason for many many attrocities[...]
maybe that wasn't the best example, but dichotomies are still a thing. not everything is a gradient, and we should be more judicious in finding the right model for the situation. ironically, by ruling out the possibility of a dichotomy you have fallen victim of bad black-and-white thinking. black-and-nothing-else thinking, in fact.
You don't change someone's world view in one fell swoop, you do it 1% at a time. [...] So it is my personal opinion that the FSF should find a different speaker that can understand his/her audience better than rms does.
well, there are some. have you listened to John Sullivan's talks? they are geared towards attracting the general FLOSS audience to the libre side of things. perhaps what we need is more people willing to educate the public with the strategy of their choice.
different strokes for different folks. i would have never jumped on board with 1% increases. the whole enterprise would have struck me as vague and poorly thought. moreover, it wouldn't matter how out from the overton window free software is. we would still need RMS' clear referent to not lose sight of what the end goal is.
RMS can't possibly adopt different strategies without being berated for inconsistency. and from a purely practical perspective, he probably knows that he will never speak to the same audience twice, which means that results will be maximum when those few all-or-nothing daredevils are targeted.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Isaac David isacdaavid@isacdaavid.info wrote:
as a cellphone non-user and die-hard libre software acolyte, i don't see the Purism people as enemies. they only need to reword their marketing to be a bit less disingenuous. they speak the language of the purists; this is how we know they _are_ aware that their products will fall short of something like a RYF cert.
First of all congratulations for not using a cellphone. I literally can't do that. People expect to find me on the phone. I have to follow facebook teams for announcements and stuff. And yes their marketing pisses me off a lot. I wish it was more honest but at the same time they are not spewing lies right and left. They do have a timeline on what they want to do, they just don't know how fast they will get there. As it stands right now, purism laptops are the only laptops that now come with coreboot preinstalled, automatically making them the second most free platform after the libreboot x200s. Think about that.
And they shouldn't. Thinking in black and white has been the sole reason for many many attrocities[...]
maybe that wasn't the best example, but dichotomies are still a thing. not everything is a gradient, and we should be more judicious in finding the right model for the situation. ironically, by ruling out the possibility of a dichotomy you have fallen victim of bad black-and-white thinking. black-and-nothing-else thinking, in fact.
Yes indeed dichotomies can exist in certain things. But on a hardware piece... nah
You don't change someone's world view in one fell swoop, you do it 1% at a time. [...] So it is my personal opinion that the FSF should find a different speaker that can understand his/her audience better than rms does.
well, there are some. have you listened to John Sullivan's talks? they are geared towards attracting the general FLOSS audience to the libre side of things. perhaps what we need is more people willing to educate the public with the strategy of their choice.
different strokes for different folks. i would have never jumped on board with 1% increases. the whole enterprise would have struck me as vague and poorly thought. moreover, it wouldn't matter how out from the overton window free software is. we would still need RMS' clear referent to not lose sight of what the end goal is.
RMS can't possibly adopt different strategies without being berated for inconsistency. and from a purely practical perspective, he probably knows that he will never speak to the same audience twice, which means that results will be maximum when those few all-or-nothing daredevils are targeted.
I haven't watched any FSF talks about their philosophy for a while. I understand their train of thought although rms was a rough introduction on it. I will check John Sullivan. And yes rms is a very important figure. He is on a tricky situation as he is probably under constant fire so he has to remain rigid. But it is a good thing that ubuntu exists and ships with wifi and gpu blobs. Without them I would have just reinstalled windows on my first try and never go any further. As it stands right now fsf endorsed distros can only run on a very limited number of hardware( such as the purism and the minifree laptops). So without ubuntu and fedora( which I'm currently using) I would have never been able to even learn about free software. And there is no way I would have bought a new laptop, no matter how cheap to try that weird thing called linux if it didn't work on my existing one( well half of my hardware was broken at the beginning but still... it could boot).
On 25/09/17 21:35, Bill Kontos wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Isaac David isacdaavid@isacdaavid.info wrote:
as a cellphone non-user and die-hard libre software acolyte, i don't see the Purism people as enemies. they only need to reword their marketing to be a bit less disingenuous. they speak the language of the purists; this is how we know they _are_ aware that their products will fall short of something like a RYF cert.
First of all congratulations for not using a cellphone. I literally can't do that. People expect to find me on the phone. I have to follow facebook teams for announcements and stuff. And yes their marketing pisses me off a lot. I wish it was more honest but at the same time they are not spewing lies right and left. They do have a timeline on what they want to do, they just don't know how fast they will get there. As it stands right now, purism laptops are the only laptops that now come with coreboot preinstalled, automatically making them the second most free platform after the libreboot x200s. Think about that.
This has been such a fascinating discussion I can't help but chip in. :)
congratulations for not using a cellphone
I envy you for being able to live without a cell phone (which are sadly all not-100%-libre atm).
A common refrain of free software advocates is that if a product is non-free, just don't use it. This way you don't lose your freedoms and you also protest the lack of it in said product.
However, I've been reflecting on this and I think the unfortunate truth is that software freedom is currently a *privilege*. Of course it should be a right, but right now it isn't.
Digital technology is so intertwined with our lives that so many of our livelihoods depend on it. So many people would literally not be able to do their jobs if they refused to use every single piece of technology that's not 100% free as in freedom.
I think this is where the likes of Purism can come in. Like mike.valk said, "It's much better than the rest. And if we're successful we might generate enough money the do even better next time." If we don't support - or even villify - attempts at *improving* and *getting closer to* freedom, they we are not moving at all!
And like what Jonathan said with the slavery and civil rights examples, in some cases it is simply more realistic to take it one step at a time (or, I guess in software's case, removing one blob at a time).
We can talk about the huge leaps needed to reach 100% software freedom everywhere, but we need a realistic way of doing that in one step. If we don't know how to make that huge leap yet, then taking many of those smaller steps (even if they don't take us all the way) **is** definitely better than waiting for the huge leap to happen!
I admit I don't know all the details and intricacies of Purism's activities, but I know there was a lot of vitriol thrown its way for its laptops during development. But if absolutely no one supported their laptop campaigns, Purism might not have had the resource to come so close to freeing the Intel MEs that they are working on now. And isn't freeding the Intel ME something worth doing?
If we think Purism's communications are not 100% accurate in saying their products are not 100% free, that's a fair criticism. But rather than vilifying them and saying they're terrible people, shouldn't we try our best to engage them and suggest a better way to communicate that?
Again, I haven't been following Purism super closely so maybe I missed something, and definitely correct me if I'm wrong. But my bigger point is that sometimes even small steps are valuable and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater!
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 22:33:40 +0100 Pen-Yuan Hsing penyuanhsing@gmail.com wrote:
I admit I don't know all the details and intricacies of Purism's activities, but I know there was a lot of vitriol thrown its way for its laptops during development. But if absolutely no one supported their laptop campaigns, Purism might not have had the resource to come so close to freeing the Intel MEs that they are working on now. And isn't freeding the Intel ME something worth doing?
If we think Purism's communications are not 100% accurate in saying their products are not 100% free, that's a fair criticism. But rather than vilifying them and saying they're terrible people, shouldn't we try our best to engage them and suggest a better way to communicate that?
Again, I haven't been following Purism super closely so maybe I missed something, and definitely correct me if I'm wrong. But my bigger point is that sometimes even small steps are valuable and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater!
You make a decent argument, however all the issues were pointed out to them during the laptop campaigns again and again, and they did not learn; they repeated them with this phone. That's willfull ignorance if not outright malevolence.
1. They advertised the laptop as 100% free, when it could not be so due to ME. 2. They advertised it would ship with coreboot, when it did not until several months after release.
Deceptive advertising, and they repeated the same thing with the phone. Even if we want somebody to succeed in a less-free device, do we want them to be the people who willfully deceive in order to do so?
- Lauri
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Lauri Kasanen cand@gmx.com wrote:
You make a decent argument, however all the issues were pointed out to them during the laptop campaigns again and again, and they did not learn; they repeated them with this phone. That's willfull ignorance if not outright malevolence.
- They advertised the laptop as 100% free, when it could not be so due
to ME. 2. They advertised it would ship with coreboot, when it did not until several months after release.
Deceptive advertising, and they repeated the same thing with the phone. Even if we want somebody to succeed in a less-free device, do we want them to be the people who willfully deceive in order to do so?
Honestly I don't really care. I look at the end result. Their advertisement pisses me off to no end, but at least they got something done. As it stands right now they are the no.2 most free and secure laptop manufacturer out there. If our community is so twisted that we need someone to decieve us to get people reverse engineering the intel ME just to "show them" or whatever happened, then I say well deserved. So unless some engineer comes out libv-style with proof that "I spent x amount of my time for purism to take advantage of it and I got nothing in return" my purchase decision will not change. So far all that they lied about was the timeframe at which they would ship the features, but not the features themselves. So no biggie for me. Also in regards to RYF certification I remember rms saying he wished amd would burn their firmware blobs for their gpus to rom so they could grand RYF to their cards. Sounds a bit of a foolish way to grand RYF, but if purism follows the same idea( which according to the campaign page they intend to) they might actually get it.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Bill Kontos vkontogpls@gmail.com wrote:
nothing in return" my purchase decision will not change. So far all that they lied about was the timeframe at which they would ship the features,
nooo, they lied - in a deceptive way - about the consequences of that quotes tiny little bit right at the beginning of the boot process quotes.
they made it look like, because everything else was libre, there was really absolutely no harm done by having the ME firmware, you really had nothing to be concerned about, you could buy one of their machines and have a totally secure system.
we know this to be absolute horseshit in an extremely significant way libreboot.org/faq/#intelme
now, it *just so happens* that someone recently discovered that the NSA has clearly had their fingers into intel processors... because they requested a DISABLE function of the ME back-door co-processor.
without such a disable function there would be absolutely no way that the NSA could authorise Intel processors for use either on their own premises or for any government usage.... because the exact same feature they demanded could be used to spy ON THEM.
fucking ironic.
now.
is ANY of this mentioned on purism's main sales web page?
if the answer is yes, i apologise deeply.
l.
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
they made it look like, because everything else was libre, there was really absolutely no harm done by having the ME firmware, you really had nothing to be concerned about, you could buy one of their machines and have a totally secure system.
I don't recall that to be honest. From what I understand they said the laptop would ship 100% libre from the beginning while they ended up shiping a traditional laptop with killswitches and the ability to run coreboot in the future, something that they achieved now. And they have a decent number of articles about their work on disabling the intel ME.
we know this to be absolute horseshit in an extremely significant way libreboot.org/faq/#intelme
now, it *just so happens* that someone recently discovered that the NSA has clearly had their fingers into intel processors... because they requested a DISABLE function of the ME back-door co-processor.
without such a disable function there would be absolutely no way that the NSA could authorise Intel processors for use either on their own premises or for any government usage.... because the exact same feature they demanded could be used to spy ON THEM.
fucking ironic.
now.
is ANY of this mentioned on purism's main sales web page?
I don't think it is and that switch was only a very recent discovery. It's ironic, the moment intel moved the AMT to x86 everyone got into breaking it. And there is a scheduled talk on how to run unsigned code on any intel ME system for a conference in the next couple weeks.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Bill Kontos vkontogpls@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
they made it look like, because everything else was libre, there was really absolutely no harm done by having the ME firmware, you really had nothing to be concerned about, you could buy one of their machines and have a totally secure system.
I don't recall that to be honest.
yes. primarily it's by omission.
From what I understand they said the laptop would ship 100% libre from the beginning while they ended up shiping a traditional laptop with killswitches and the ability to run coreboot in the future, something that they achieved now. And they have a decent number of articles about their work on disabling the intel ME.
their _requests to intel_ to disable the ME back-door co-processor... specifically requested (or, well... if the NSA "asks" you can't exactly say "No"... not if you want to stay in business...) that it be added in the first place.
which do you think intel will take seriously: the threats the NSA made against them (along with the nice bribes).. or a company that makes up 0.00001% of their global business sales?
I don't think it is and that switch was only a very recent discovery.
yehyeh.
It's ironic, the moment intel moved the AMT to x86 everyone got into breaking it. And there is a scheduled talk on how to run unsigned code on any intel ME system for a conference in the next couple weeks.
at laaaast. that's extremely good news. maybe i can do an intel eoma68 card some day after all.
l.
On 09/26/2017 04:46 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Bill Kontos vkontogpls@gmail.com wrote:
It's ironic, the moment intel moved the AMT to x86 everyone got into breaking it. And there is a scheduled talk on how to run unsigned code on any intel ME system for a conference in the next couple weeks.
at laaaast. that's extremely good news. maybe i can do an intel eoma68 card some day after all.
That opens up an interesting possibility. If that unsigned code exploit might be able to be executed remotely and it breaks the trusted security, then we could see in businesses that have to care about such things a flight to AMD and... Talos. The latter might do very nicely to put open hardware and, by extension, free software into the prime-time limelight. Of course, that depends on Intel not being able to fix it, though they'd probably be forevermore tainted by it.
Tor
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:46:34 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Bill Kontos vkontogpls@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
they made it look like, because everything else was libre, there was really absolutely no harm done by having the ME firmware, you really had nothing to be concerned about, you could buy one of their machines and have a totally secure system.
I don't recall that to be honest.
yes. primarily it's by omission.
From what I understand they said the laptop would ship 100% libre from the beginning while they ended up shiping a traditional laptop with killswitches and the ability to run coreboot in the future, something that they achieved now. And they have a decent number of articles about their work on disabling the intel ME.
their _requests to intel_ to disable the ME back-door co-processor... specifically requested (or, well... if the NSA "asks" you can't exactly say "No"... not if you want to stay in business...) that it be added in the first place.
which do you think intel will take seriously: the threats the NSA made against them (along with the nice bribes).. or a company that makes up 0.00001% of their global business sales?
I don't think it is and that switch was only a very recent discovery.
yehyeh.
It's ironic, the moment intel moved the AMT to x86 everyone got into breaking it. And there is a scheduled talk on how to run unsigned code on any intel ME system for a conference in the next couple weeks.
at laaaast. that's extremely good news. maybe i can do an intel eoma68 card some day after all.
l.
BTW: Sorry this is so late, I've been catching up on my mail. A scheduled talk held where? Can I get a copy?
Thanks, David
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
now, it *just so happens* that someone recently discovered that the NSA has clearly had their fingers into intel processors... because they requested a DISABLE function of the ME back-door co-processor.
without such a disable function there would be absolutely no way that the NSA could authorise Intel processors for use either on their own premises or for any government usage.... because the exact same feature they demanded could be used to spy ON THEM.
fucking ironic.
Quite; does this disable function fully and completely disable all attempts at using any ME functionality such that nothing can re-enable the ME, or is this disablement somehow impermanent or more limited in some way?
I ask because I vaguely recall that someone (Purism, perhaps?) had remote ME accesses disabled but still allowed local accesses. This struck me as nearly useless because such an arrangement would allow running a program to relay ME requests and responses over a network connection (an ME proxy, basically).
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:10 AM, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
Quite; does this disable function fully and completely disable all attempts at using any ME functionality such that nothing can re-enable the ME, or is this disablement somehow impermanent or more limited in some way?
AFAIK the ME will start booting, see the switch, disable the watchdog that would shut the machine down in 30 minutes normally and turn itself off.
I ask because I vaguely recall that someone (Purism, perhaps?) had remote ME accesses disabled but still allowed local accesses. This struck me as nearly useless because such an arrangement would allow running a program to relay ME requests and responses over a network connection (an ME proxy, basically).
No Purism has effectively disabled the ME completely at this point. I say effectively because they have disabled everything but the BUP module. So no it doesn't have remote access and it can't run anny 3d party code. It seems like they have put this on hold and switched to porting Coreboot. But even assuming they had only disabled remote access wouldn't that mean that an attacker would need physical access to the machine instead of doing a remote attack?
https://puri.sm/posts/neutralizing-intel-management-engine-on-librem-laptops...
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 02:10:56 -0500 "J.B. Nicholson" jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
now, it *just so happens* that someone recently discovered that the NSA has clearly had their fingers into intel processors... because they requested a DISABLE function of the ME back-door co-processor.
without such a disable function there would be absolutely no way that
the NSA could authorise Intel processors for use either on their own premises or for any government usage.... because the exact same feature they demanded could be used to spy ON THEM.
fucking ironic.
Quite; does this disable function fully and completely disable all attempts at using any ME functionality such that nothing can re-enable the ME, or is this disablement somehow impermanent or more limited in some way?
I ask because I vaguely recall that someone (Purism, perhaps?) had remote ME accesses disabled but still allowed local accesses. This struck me as nearly useless because such an arrangement would allow running a program to relay ME requests and responses over a network connection (an ME proxy, basically).
BTW: Sorry this is so late, I've been catching up on my mail. Do you have a reference for the NSA disabling the ME?
Thanks, David
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net writes:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Bill Kontos vkontogpls@gmail.com wrote:
nothing in return" my purchase decision will not change. So far all that they lied about was the timeframe at which they would ship the features,
nooo, they lied - in a deceptive way
Lying in a deceptive way? Surely not! ;-)
I think that it's fairly normal practice to omit inconvenient facts in one's publicity, which is what appears to be the case, although it's really hard to tell since I didn't see the material in question, and no citations seem to have been given throughout this discussion, so the whole thing seems rather like a lot of mumbled rumour.
I suspect that the EOMA crowdfunding, if subjected to the same level of scrutiny, might also be found wanting. Did it for instance mention your qualifications (or lack thereof) in the field of mechanical engineering, which might be considered a relevant fact when considering funding you to build a laptop from scratch? Is that omission a case of lying, be that in a deceptive way or otherwise?
Looking at the publicity for the phone, I note that I know several of people involved with this (unless they are using people's photos without permission, and making up quotes -- which I can always check if that's what people are trying to say).
Assuming the endorsements are genuine, then I know these people well enough to know that they'd only endorse something that they genuinely thought to be a good thing, as I'm pretty sure they all know how easy it is to tarnish one's reputation.
If there really is something wrong with this project, then point me at actual evidence (rather than a lot of unsubstantiated assertions), and I'll pass that on so that those people can withdraw their support before the crowdfunding succeeds, which should limit the overall damage.
If it all just boils down to making the perfect the enemy of the good, then I suggest that you stop shouting "Splitters!" at them for using the word Free when you think they meant Libre, or vice versa, or whatever.
Cheers, Phil.
(before I respond below, just full disclosure again: I didn't follow the Purism campaigns super closely so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on the *facts*!)
On 26/09/17 13:48, Bill Kontos wrote:
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Lauri Kasanen cand@gmx.com wrote:
You make a decent argument, however all the issues were pointed out to them during the laptop campaigns again and again, and they did not learn; they repeated them with this phone. That's willfull ignorance if not outright malevolence.
- They advertised the laptop as 100% free, when it could not be so due
to ME. 2. They advertised it would ship with coreboot, when it did not until several months after release.
Deceptive advertising, and they repeated the same thing with the phone. Even if we want somebody to succeed in a less-free device, do we want them to be the people who willfully deceive in order to do so?
I certainly agree that people shouldn't "willfully deceive"! That said, there is a high bar for demonstrating **wilful** lying. This high bar is certainly true in many legal jurisdictions, and I think it's a good idea in general.
As far as I remember (and atm I really don't have time to check archive.org), when the Librem laptop campaigns first began, they already had that table in their campaign description saying the BIOS and Intel ME have not yet been freed, but everything else is. At the time it looked fairly clear to me that Purism wanted to make a 100%-libre laptop but there were still a few bits missing. It also seemed clear to me that they are working on freeing those bits.
One could certainly argue that Purism didn't *emphasise* the non-free bits, but to me there was no clear *wilful* lying because all the facts were on the campaign page.
Another important point is that this was a crowdfunding campaign, not a traditional sales page. And like other crowdfunding campaigns, Purism laid out what they wanted to achieve. And just like other crowdfunding campaigns, there is by default no 100% guarantee that everything the project sets out to do will be 100% achieved 100% on time. Maybe I'm strange for this, but when I pledge money for a crowdfunding campaign I know I am supporting the project to move towards a goal while conscious that sometimes not all the goals are 100% achieved.
And let's look at what Purism *has* achieved: They are now much closer to freeing the Intel ME on their laptops, certainly much closer than before their campaign started. This benefits everyone not just Purism, and I don't think this achievement is possible if no one supported their initial crowdfunding.
I agree Purism is likely far from perfect, but during the same period of time has anyone else achieved what Purism did? (honest question)
I'm a backer of the EOMA68 project and am super excited about what's being done here, but it's a different set of achievements from what Purism is working on.
But whatever Purism's real intentions, my main point isn't to defend them.
Honestly I don't really care. I look at the end result. Their advertisement pisses me off to no end, but at least they got something done. As it stands right now they are the no.2 most free and secure laptop manufacturer out there. If our community is so twisted that we need someone to decieve us to get people reverse engineering the intel ME just to "show them" or whatever happened, then I say well deserved. So unless some engineer comes out libv-style with proof that "I spent x amount of my time for purism to take advantage of it and I got nothing in return" my purchase decision will not change. So far all that they lied about was the timeframe at which they would ship the features, but not the features themselves. So no biggie for me. Also in regards to RYF certification I remember rms saying he wished amd would burn their firmware blobs for their gpus to rom so they could grand RYF to their cards. Sounds a bit of a foolish way to grand RYF, but if purism follows the same idea( which according to the campaign page they intend to) they might actually get it.
I partly agree with Bill here.
To be clear: My point isn't to *specifically* defend Purism, though they have demonstrable achievements for software freedom.
My main point is that I feel the free software community *in general* is very hostile towards small steps that don't take us to 100% software freedom. If a laptop that's, say, 95%-libre is made by someone (doesn't have to be Purism), it is real progress and objectively better than a laptop that's 50% or even 0% libre.
I think our response to projects that make 95%-ish-libre (or even 75%) products shouldn't be "you are a terrible person!", it should be "great job for taking us a bit closer to software freedom, how do we work together to make it even better?"
This is what I think, and if you disagree on this main point (not specific to Purism) I'd honestly love to hear your opinion!
the problem is... people *really* don't like it when you point that out... because people don't normally think in hard black-and-white.
And they shouldn't. Thinking in black and white has been the sole reason for many many attrocities and racism in human history. I am really dissapointed to read this coming from you.
I suppose there is some truth to that, but I guess, there is white, black and gray (not talking about races)
the most we have in life is shades of gray. Not talking about that dumb movie.
What is key is that we move towards the lighter gray not the darker or even worse black...
which is why you get people going completely off-the-fucking-wall NUTS during question-time at dr stallman's talks. they accuse him of hypocrisy, shout and almost scream at him... just so that they can mentally dismiss everything he said for the past 105 minutes and be able to walk out in a huff.
rms should seriously work on his presentation. You don't change someone's world view in one fell swoop, you do it 1% at a time. I felt exactly the same when I first read about rms and I was so repelled by him that I almost just wipped my fresh first time ubuntu installation. The only reason I persisted was for reasons of my own character. Unfortunately we don't have the technical means he has with an entire organisation supporting him technically and a lot of us have hardware requirements that mandate blobs. This is why projects like this, riscv and the talos project are so important. The free culture is still too left on the overton window for the average joe. So it is my personal opinion that the FSF should find a different speaker that can understand his/her audience better than rms does. Let alone the fact that pretty much all his talks are to the wrong audience. Think about it, you have to already be into FOSS to learn of rms, those that need to learn about it are the ones that are not into it. In adition to this I don't have time to figure out every stupid way microsoft breaks compatibility with .docx and .odt, if it doesn't work on libreoffice I upload it on google docs and download the converted form. I just don't have time for this and the end result is all that matters.
No... RMS means well, if people don't want to understand him its their fault. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with him on faith... (notice I didn't say religion because that falls into a category of doing what is impossible for mankind alone.) My belief of religion is trying to follow any type of faith perfectly which is impossible. And that Christianity is a type of faith that cannot be used religiously. I have come to that conclusion due to several things, including the 2016 election. I will stop that part for now though...
But I really do not think Stallman is wrong about libre/free software. People need to stop acting like capitalism is from God or something like that and socialism is from hell. In reality, I think both have their purposes in this life but, capitalism right now is like 85% of my country. when it should be only 40% of the country.
Anyways though, I will get to the point now, captialism says make money at any cost even if it means invading people's privacy and screwing with people's lives and bribing the government.
That's my personal view by the way.
Socialism I believe gives too much freedom though. A balance is needed clearly...
in a way, software libre - the whole FSF thing - is basically the modern-day equivalent of the black rights, slavery freedom / rights, women's rights, and any civil liberties movement you care to name. it's just completely unappreciated as such.
As I said, the free culture movement is still too left on the overton window, but people are getting more and more fed up with the current situation( i.e. drm, copyright on various fan-made content from series etc), so it might improve in the near future. We just got our first FOSS game engine with enough patreon money for a developer to work full time on it. CC is a also a big deal with good high quality content published with it. Countries are willing to host websites that directly violate copyright laws because there is practical demand for it. The EU can try as hard as they want to hide the fact that piracy does not affect revenue streams but the reality is the only reasons publishers push against piracy with the petty argument of "paying the creator" is so free culture does not get the chance to become a more mainstream acceptable idea. So things are changing and the change is accelerating. People want better treatment on their software and you can see it by the marketshare changes, and with time it will improve. But it is BY NO MEANS a black or white scenario.
It would also help if rms would realise his position at the fsf as a public entity and did not advocate pedophilia without any compelling scientific arguments on his personal website.
Another thing to consider, piracy REALLY DOESN'T exist...
Sharing works copyrighted or not, is not piracy. Pirates stole everything not just a copy of the author's work and sold it. They also killed people and raped people to death. My point is that piracy is a horrible way to describe people who share copyrighted works.
This has been an interesting conversation though. Thank you.
ps, socialism should be 50% of all governments,
40% captialism.
and 10% everything else
That's my opinion anyways.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
Throwing my voice in the ring...
*On topic --* I agree with the 'shades of grey' view of things. Life is not simple, and (with exactly one single exception, AFAIK) anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves and possibly others. There are just varying kinds of complexity. The sole exception I can find is blissful ignorance, and I for one want nothing of that.
*Not-entirely-on-topic-but-we're-talking-about-it-so-whatever --* "socialism" got its bad rap because of a different but similar system called "communism". Someone somewhere got the bright idea (not!) to conflate the two, and away we went. Actual, real, true socialism (Marxist or otherwise) has, as far as I'm aware, never been actually tested as a means of governance. Communism has, but that's different, in a way that (as usual) is nuanced and can't be really reduced to a sound bite quite nearly as easily as "socialism is bad ya'll".
For those who do not study political science enough to know the difference -- in a nutshell, socialism relies on the people to overthrow their existing government and replace it with socialism. Communism is a revolution from within the government, in that the people are not to be trusted to pull it all off correctly and so the government must do it for them. This demonstrably leads to paranoia in governance and a totalitarian state.
*Nota Bene -- *mind you, while I consider myself a socialist, I am NOT NOT NOT FLAMING NOT a Marxist. Marx's original idea called, as the end product, for a "non-state" (for lack of a better term) -- what amounted to a sort of cooperative anarchy wherein a government didn't exist because it was to be superfluous. I do not have anywhere near enough faith in humanity (or anything else) to imagine that such an organization (again, for lack of a better term) would last one hot minute. The first yahoo born who realizes how easy it is to game that system is going to bring the whole thing crashing down -- and, given how crafty we all are as it is, that's going to happen in a time frame best measured in fractional heartbeats. What I would like to see, would look a little more like the way many Nordic countries operate -- what they call "social democracy". I personally think there are ways to improve even those systems, but that's the model I'd primarily start with if I were given the order to reinvent civilization from the ground up... (please don't ever give me that order, though, as I will freely volunteer that I am in no way qualified for the job. I'm just another armchair emperor, so to speak...)
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Isaac David isacdaavid@isacdaavid.info wrote:
Bill Kontos wrote :
Purists that will tell you to just not use a phone because we are required by regulations to run those few kb of closed rom code have no place in this discussion honestly because they offer nothing to the table for a solution.
this bit here struck a chord with me.
Noo, I'm talking about the free software purists not purism.
Luke, when rms was asked wether he prefered gamers to play proprietary games on windows or linux he didn't answer "don't play proprietary games". He chose linux with the rationale that it's better to to run a proprietary application on an open platform so the users can experience software freedom at least to so extend in order to understand the benefits of it. Because as I said the entire argument for the ethical point is to be pro user, pro decentralization and against massive power interests. The same happened when they ported the GNU userland to closed platforms in the 90s.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:03 PM, zap calmstorm@posteo.de wrote:
No... RMS means well, if people don't want to understand him its their fault. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with him on faith... (notice I didn't say religion because that falls into a category of doing what is impossible for mankind alone.) My belief of religion is trying to follow any type of faith perfectly which is impossible. And that Christianity is a type of faith that cannot be used religiously. I have come to that conclusion due to several things, including the 2016 election. I will stop that part for now though...
I know rms means good and that is the reason why I always advocate for his work. I don't want to go into religion and politics as we are opening too many discussions. But as I said what a lot of technical people don't understand is that our worldview is an integral part of our character. Challenging that automatically puts the person into defense mode. It's not something we can do about, it's an instict. You have to be very careful to not make a big attack so logic can prevail over the instict. This is a tradoff that I come up with all the time in my line of work: how to initiate a change on the state of mind fast enough but not too fast that it fails.
But I really do not think Stallman is wrong about libre/free software. People need to stop acting like capitalism is from God or something like that and socialism is from hell. In reality, I think both have their purposes in this life but, capitalism right now is like 85% of my country. when it should be only 40% of the country.
Stallman is absolutely right. If you heart is in the right place you will imediately understand the benefits of the free culture movement for everyone. The fact that we are not there yet is due to actions from big interests that want to keep sharing limited to the old model and due to the fact that society hasn't really caught up with it yet. But we are getting there. The fact that we can now make infinite copies of a piece of art/software and freely share them but we are artificially shutting the door to it just blows my mind...
Another thing to consider, piracy REALLY DOESN'T exist...
Well, the modern version of piracy. I think everyone understands that and doesn't confuse it with the historical version of it. Besides the fact that we have a site called piratebay doesn't help.
Stallman is absolutely right. If you heart is in the right place you will imediately understand the benefits of the free culture movement for everyone. The fact that we are not there yet is due to actions from big interests that want to keep sharing limited to the old model and due to the fact that society hasn't really caught up with it yet. But we are getting there. The fact that we can now make infinite copies of a piece of art/software and freely share them but we are artificially shutting the door to it just blows my mind...
Yep, it doesn't make too much sense. But also, piracy was a term coined to make drm easier to implement without people freaking out against people in power/corporations.
In all truth though, piracy is an extreme word to use for freely sharing software.
I don't agree that it should be called piracy at all. Matter of fact, copyright is unenforceable when it comes to the people that it was trying to stop in the first place. copyright was *ORIGINALLY...* to stop people from selling their own copies of someone else's software and act like it is theirs but now they have expanded it so far that it is now okay to do that which is wrong... *INVADING PEOPLE's PRIVACY!!! *and you cannot remove that part unless you reverse engineer it. Which should be a non-issue. Screw *DRM.* that is all.
On 09/25/2017 03:17 PM, zap wrote:
But also, piracy was a term coined to make drm easier to implement without people freaking out against people in power/corporations.
From my reading, pirates/piracy as relates to copyright was actually
coined looong ago, well before software. It originally referred to publishers who found ways (often legal by means of other countries' laws) to reprint works and not pay the author. I'm pretty sure I once read that the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta The Pirates of Penzance was spurred at least in part by such copyright pirates.
Tor
On 09/25/2017 09:30 PM, Tor, the Marqueteur wrote:
without people freaking out against people in power/corporations.
From my reading, pirates/piracy as relates to copyright was actually
Okay, I thought it was something coined by corrupt arrogant specks from the 20th century...
my bad.
On 26/09/2017 11:41 AM, zap wrote:
On 09/25/2017 09:30 PM, Tor, the Marqueteur wrote:
without people freaking out against people in power/corporations.
From my reading, pirates/piracy as relates to copyright was actually
Okay, I thought it was something coined by corrupt arrogant specks from the 20th century...
my bad. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
Found this on Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Piracy.22
"Article 12 of the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works uses the term "piracy" in relation to copyright infringement, stating "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection."
Michael
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Michael Verrenkamp jabjabs@fastmail.com.au writes:
On 26/09/2017 11:41 AM, zap wrote:
On 09/25/2017 09:30 PM, Tor, the Marqueteur wrote:
without people freaking out against people in power/corporations.
From my reading, pirates/piracy as relates to copyright was actually
Okay, I thought it was something coined by corrupt arrogant specks from the 20th century...
my bad. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
Found this on Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Piracy.22
"Article 12 of the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works uses the term "piracy" in relation to copyright infringement, stating "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection."
Wow! I really wasn't expecting this thread to produce anything useful. Thanks. I like it when I learn something new. ;-)
FWIW I as a Debian Developer of 20+ years standing am pretty committed to Free Software, and have subscribed to things like the OpenMoko and the neo900, disappointingly without it resulting in a phone I can use to date.
There was a lot of heat, but not very much light in this thread.
Meanwhile I've signed up for one of these phones.
I don't have any great expectation that they'll succeed, since I've seen previous attempts fail, but if I end up with a (mostly) Free Software based phone, running a mainstream kernel/distro that is likely to survive the demise of the project, I'll be pretty happy about it.
I doubt the chances of that happening will be improved one iota by attempting to make them do things to satisfy people who, when it comes down to it, don't actually want a phone in their pocket, but rather a "100% libre" thing that looks like a phone, but cannot make phone calls unless you plug it into an external dongle (or some such).
If you can show me a better project, then I might invest in that too, but in the absence of that I'm willing to put up with the level of non-freeness that is pretty-much inherent in making such a device.
The neo900 folk seem to be aiming a little higher, but they also seem to have effectively failed at this point, because they have taken so long that they've lost their opportunity -- there is probably not going to be a vibrant developer community coalescing around a phone that is so far behind the curve and expensive. Also, even if it did become popular somehow, the parts are probably not available for a second run.
Cheers, Phil.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
but seriously: ethical decision-making is an on-off thing. it's either black - you made an ethical decision - or it's white - you made an UNethical decision. you chose CONVENIENCE over making a stand, and saying "no further. the line is HERE".
Let's assume that everyone agrees on what makes a decision ethical or unethical for a moment - this is not the case, but it's a huge topic on its own, so let's sidestep that.
I disagree. For any single decision regarding which component to pick, this may be true. But as a whole, it's more grey than that.
As a hypothetical, let's say you're trying to make a phone that's as free as possible. You're able to include components with free firmware and free drivers right up until you hit the GPU, at which point the only available chip that fits within your budget has proprietary firmware. Every other phone on the market also has proprietary firmware for their GPUs, and the rest of it is more proprietary than your new device. Does the fact that your device also requires nonfree firmware for that component make it unethical to produce this device as a whole?
I would argue that it does not. Producing this device, while it doesn't take you the whole way there, still gives users the ability to choose a device that's more free than what they're currently able to choose. If the creators of this device took the hard-line stance that every component must be free despite not being able to procure free versions of the components they require, the phone simply wouldn't be made, and users would be worse off for it.
in a way, software libre - the whole FSF thing - is basically the modern-day equivalent of the black rights, slavery freedom / rights, women's rights, and any civil liberties movement you care to name. it's just completely unappreciated as such.
To run with your analogy here: the Emancipation Proclamation took effect in 1863, the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865, but racial discrimination was legally permitted in the US until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Had the country taken a hard-line stance that all slaves must be freed *and* treated equally at the same time, there likely would have been more opposition to the idea than there was to the single step of freeing the slaves.
Both are important, but it's easier to convince people to change one step at a time, and the world is still made a better place each time. Not perfect, no, but better.
2017-09-25 13:47 GMT+02:00 Tzafrir Cohen tzafrir@cohens.org.il:
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 07:49:13PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
WHAT CPU WILL BE USED I.MX6 OR I.MX8? We are using the i.MX6, unless/until we know we can use i.MX8.
?? power-hungry Cortex A9?? worra??
WILL YOU BE SEEKING FSF RYF ENDORSEMENT? We will constantly keep FSF up-to-date on the hardware and software, our current understanding is any non-free kernel firmware needed for RF chips will not meet the RYF qualifications today
that's right boyzngirlz, it don't. so... why are you calling your company "purism", again?
*sigh*....
For every purest of the purists there is someone even more purist.
In this case it's about being honest. Just because it's less bad does not make it good.
If every one is doing the bad thing, that doesn't make it right. That way of thinking brought on the whole banking crisis. And many wars etc.
I'm not saying that this will start a crisis or a war. But it's wrong nonetheless.
They sell this as an good "open" product. If they believe they are doing the right thing they are just totally wrong. And probably deaf.
The'res no shame in saying: Is the phone BLOB free no! Is it more open than the average smartphone yes. It's much better than the rest. And if we're successful we might generate enough money the do even better next time. Support us!
What you do get. - Better privacy. The telco does not have access to your memory! Why? The GSM module is separate from CPU. - Opensource drivers. You can swap OS and keep upgrading until it falls apart. - Open schematics. Hack away it's your as you please.
What not - Open firmware
How's that for purism marketing!
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
Alexander Ross -
Bill Kontos -
Christopher Havel -
doark＠mail.com -
Hendrik Boom -
Isaac David -
J.B. Nicholson -
Jonathan Frederickson -
Lauri Kasanen -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
Michael Verrenkamp -
mike.valk＠gmail.com -
Pen-Yuan Hsing -
Philip Hands -
Stephen Paul Weber -
Tomas Nordin -
Tor, the Marqueteur -
Tzafrir Cohen -
zap