Following yesterday’s Linux 6.18 kernel release, GNU Linux-libre 6.18-gnu is out today as the latest release of this free software purist kernel that will drop/block drivers from loading microcode/firmware considered non-free-software and other restrictions in the name of not pushing binary blobs even when needed for hardware support/functionality on otherwise open-source drivers.
With Linux 6.18 there are more upstream kernel drivers dependent upon binary-only firmware/microcode. Among the drivers called out this cycle are the open-source NVIDIA Nova-Core Rust driver as well as the modern Intel Xe driver. Nova-Core is exclusively designed around the NVIDIA GPU System Processor (GSP) usage and thus without its firmware the driver is inoperable. Similarly, with the newer Intel Xe driver depending upon the GuC micro-controller without its firmware the support is also rendered useless.
@Scoopta @cm0002 The point is that if everything was open Linux support would be so much better as we would understand the working of the hardware so much better, and we should do everything we can to discourage manufacturers from adopting this stance. FOSS has the great benefit that anyone in the world can improve it, and then share their improvements with everyone else. That makes a better world. Just better.
To be clear, I’m not saying I don’t want open hardware, what I’m saying is I don’t get the point of allowing closed hardware that doesn’t require a firmware blob as opposed to closed hardware that does. That’s a very arbitrary and silly line that does nothing useful. They’re going on this crusade of “no blobs.” But why? There’s lots of hardware that already has closed blobs on the HW, but because it’s not uploaded by the driver those blobs are ok? You either have to say all closed firmware is bad and we’re going to take a stance against any devices which have any amount of closed firmware, even when shipped on ROM in the HW. Or, closed firmware is tolerable so long as the driver is fully FOSS. I love the idea of not having closed firmware but I just don’t get the intellectual inconsistency here.
The line is basically programmability. If a device runs “firmware” that can’t be changed, that’s really just a part of the design of the hardware you bought, so the fact that you can’t see or modify the source code is irrelevant- even if you could, it wouldn’t give you any more control over the hardware. If it runs firmware that can be changed, it’s a programmable computer, and by running proprietary firmware, you’re giving up control you would otherwise have over your computer.