When you buy hardware you often just get whatever wifi device the OEM decided to install at the time. While some wifi devices need firmware to be loaded, many just already have the proprietary firmware flashed onto the device anyway - as with many other devices on a typical x86 motherboard (including the CPU).

Also you should bear in mind that firmware is not really a "blob" (well maybe in Linux-speak). A blob is something like the Nvidia proprietary kernel module. Firmware is not even executable by the OS, it runs on the device.

You could have the full set of proprietary firmware images, as distributed by the Linux kernel, installed, but if you don't have any of that hardware, it just sits there taking up a few MBs.

It's catch 22... the more valid argument is "x86 uses proprietary firmware, so don't use it". But where does that leave you?

That's precisely the point I was making. We don't have much choice in what hardware is installed on our central box, so we need software that can run on it. If the software doesn't work, what use is high-minded talk about freedom?

If HP brag about it the suspicion's pretty well confirmed.

1 members found this post helpful.

this is the fiasco from 2 years ago:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l.../msg00053.html
and this is an explanation/apology from 1.5 years ago; it's worth reading top to bottom:
https://libreboot.org/news/unity.html
and this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/libreboot/c...gnu_community/ - is a little too long for me, but it seems to confirm the first in much detail (apparently user libreleah is Leah Rowe).

Thank you, Leah Rowe for being magnanimous enough to apologize & turn around like that. i really mean it, no sarcasm.

What is interesting is this:
how did it come to this in the first place? how can a person that has now proved themselves to be sensible after all, have had such an ugly outburst in the first place?
i think this is only partly due to "personal duifficulties" (or whatever term she used) - the other part is a general athmosphere that supports outbursts like this on the one and only condition that it's about gender trouble, no matter how in/valid they are.

1 members found this post helpful.

There is a valid point, well perhaps in theory, that avoiding or not easily enabling such hardware might deter the vendors from producing such devices. In my opinion it will not, it might - at a stretch - influence the vendor to just place the firmware permanently on the device, but I seriously doubt it.

The devices are very much targeted at "Wintel". The Windows proprietary drivers for such devices contain everything needed for the device to function and loads the firmware.

On the subject of HP printers - that's precisely how a lot of their cheaper printers work. Firmware is loaded and the printer is mostly a software based solution anyway.

If anything the proprietary firmware situation has only gotten worse. It's getting to be a big part of how the vendors shield their IP from GPL licences, etc. It's why you don't get 3D acceleration/DRI with AMD FOSS video drivers without closed source firmware.

This is also exactly how it's working with Android. You have layers of GPL -> permissive (e.g. BSD, ISC, MIT, etc) -> proprietary.

To me the "ugly outburst" was typical bandwagon fallacy, coupled with the usual, one dimensional, SJW behaviour, i.e. demanding that an organisation reprimand or fire the supposed offender and when they fail to act, or do not fully satisfy the SJWs' demands, they will refocus their attack on the organisation itself ("with us or against us").

The whole thing was based on one anonymous person's word against possibly two or more others, it was an internal issue and a legal matter, we don't know what happened or who was involved, except the two who were outed (and slandered) by this 3rd party as those perpetrating the "bullying" - one of which received an apology as part of the 2017 open letter, whilst the other seemingly did not.

As is often the case, on reflection it's likely that they calmed down, adjusted to the realities and perhaps accepted that their outrage was being (mis)directed. But more likely that leaving GNU was (for them) a big own goal. Perhaps the credibility of the source has since been called into question, who knows.

For me, the excuses really don't cut it. If some developer had posted a lot of vile and obnoxious comments about transgender people, then returned a year or so later, apologised and claimed it was all down to depression and/or substance abuse and then applied to join GNU, these "activists", who are always happy to dig up historical misdemeanours, would certainly not find that at all acceptable and would be pressing hard for that person to be excluded.

If the apology were fully open and transparent, made clearly and concisely to all of the accused without any exception, without the excuses, without all the drama and without the follow up request to rejoin GNU, it might be credible.