Without Matomo Campaign Tracking:
We can verify that an individual’s firmware hasn’t been altered.
I am wondering what measures are actually in place to provide this.
I mean in and of itself the implication is true that if the firmware is a file that we can readily, reliably and reproducibly access then it is possible to detect alterations (before it is provided to the WiFi card) but does that actually happen and if so how?
Whatever what you THINK about Firmware-Blob in userland this meaning that Pure OS can not be 100% libre on L14.
It is big Shame from Purism and Please be HONEST by Removing PureOS from Free Software foundation , STOP Cheating Peoples, STOP Gaming Peoples.
If Purism want to be Opensource that fine but Fancy_Opensource already exist like System76, Starlabs.
Purism is dead.
This may depend on the subtleties of the definition of “userland” and “100% libre”.
Of course the Librem 14 can occur without WiFi at all, a point that the article itself makes, and therefore it should be possible to certify the Librem 14 in and of itself under more restrictive definitions. It would also be true that you could certify the Librem 14 with a different WiFi card, a point that the article itself makes, under more restrictive definitions.
But let’s say that by “Librem 14” we mean “Librem 14 with Intel AX200” then see the first paragraph.
As far as “100% libre” goes, this is a well trodden argument. Any system where the WiFi card is present and has blackbox firmware is not 100% libre. If the firmware is “hidden away” that doesn’t change the fact that the system is not 100% libre. Almost no regular desktops and laptops are 100% libre. For example, the firmware for the SSD is typically a blackbox (and the firmware typically can’t possibly be loaded from the file system because otherwise you have a chicken-and-egg problem).
The question is: what benefit do you derive from having the firmware hidden away?
The supplementary question, although not really relevant to the point that you made, is: what benefit do you derive from having the firmware loaded at boot-time?
It’s probably been asked before and maybe the answer is just to link me to the right discussion, but why would people “trod” this argument instead of just writing new drivers themselves? I wrote IPv6 drivers for a university project a few years ago. This stuff doesn’t run on rocket science. You don’t need a PHD to read a few RFCs
Edit: Now that I think about it, actually it was a PHD/grad course that taught me to read those RFCs. I was just trying to use a turn of expression. My point is that this stuff doesn’t seem to me to be ostensibly difficult. Maybe if we were solving for high level machine learning mathematics or immensely complex physics equations, it could make sense for it to be unable to be rewritten in an open source way. But sending some packets back and forth between the air waves? I mean…
Hidden it’s a ridiculous term and it is used for own benefit to justify X thing to do, so better to say Insulated, all peoples already know big problematics about firmware blob on controllers and that part is hard to solve, so the unique way ATM to have an Operating System 100% Libre is by running the Blob Isolated from the main c.p.u.
Just like when Purism had d.d.s attack they never informed to the public why the forum is down, now with this Blogs of Jonathon hall and Martin kepplinger about samething they not saying the true why making this changes instead they talking ridiculous opensource things so i guess that Purism do not care user anymore then theys just gaming with us.
Other benefits of blobs in userland is being updating the blob by o.s without notifying the user so whaaat Control Jonathon talk about? Yeah m.t.d trick, whatever cheaper lazy purism programmers
We’re talking about firmware, not drivers, although in some systems both could be a blackbox problem.
It is rocket science if you need a whole lot of information that is not documented (not publicly available) and hence might have to be found either via trial-and-error or via reverse engineering or …
The firmware will be completely isolated from the main CPU because it runs on the card itself, on some CPU, the details of which may be quite unknown (to us).
The blackbox firmware may compromise the card but that is true no matter how the firmware gets there.
So, I spent a lot of my time modding an old RTS game where there was never documentation. The apathy of the people who came before locks us into this kind of research. But it’s not particularly difficult, it just requires figuring it out. I mean, how do we live in a world with GNU linux machines but when somebody says we need to write a little firmware our collective consciousness says, “No, that’s hard”
This seems ridiculous to me, but admittedly I haven’t tried to write my own code to solve the problem yet.
Edit: And I mean, if the FBI/CIA show up at your door and murder you and take your computer anytime somebody writes their own wifi firmware, then obviously I’m not going to do it. Because I, too, don’t want to die. But if that is what is happening, it would be nice if we were simply honest about it.
When you do try can you report back and reflect on this statement?
What I actually said is: That’s hard.
I didn’t say “yes” or “no”.
To make it harder, imagine that the firmware runs on a CPU for which there is no instruction set documentation / you don’t even know what CPU it is.
However, yes, please, I would like you to open source the firmware for the BM818 modem by reverse engineering it. (The cellular modem may be more interesting to me personally than the WiFi card but either would be an achievement.)
I hope not!
I need Purism to survive at least until NXP ships an i.MX 98 or whatnot so they can build me a phone that plays video with more than three frames per second.