Intel — Only "Open" For Business 213
Michael Knudsen writes, "Intel still refuses to work with open source projects such that they can provide their users with proper support for Intel's hardware products. As he has done before, Theo de Raadt once again asks users to take action by contacting Intel, telling them what they think of their current policy of not releasing hardware documentation and granting open source projects the right to distribute hardware firmware with their products. Failing to do so only harms users in the way that they risk having unsupported or malfunctioning hardware in their operating system of choice." Read more below.
It's really important that people understand that Intel is only trying to cooperate just enough to make people believe that they're open and doing the right thing. Don't fool yourselves: They are not.
What we need all users of open source software to do is contact Intel and let them know what you think of their current behaviour. If you run a big department and chose another vendor's products over Intel's because it doesn't work in your operating system, let them know, along with how many units they could have sold you. If you are an end user who has had problems when using Intel hardware because of poor support, let them know.
Let them know that their current lack of support will only harm them in the long run because you will be avoiding their products. Let them know that you want your hardware to work out of the box when you have installed your operating system of choice, and how Intel is preventing this with their lack of support.
Intel is not doing you a favor by requiring you to go to a website and download firmware for your hardware. You paid for the hardware, and Intel is thanking you by making it difficult for you to use it. Let Intel know what you think of this.
Yes, but: (Score:5, Insightful)
James is a big fat liar
(It's in TFA, believe it or not.)
This is no way to get the other side to play nicely with you.
Be professional! (Score:5, Insightful)
Subject: Linux Wireless Firmware Distribution
I was very happy to hear that Intel is working with the community to
ensure that G965 graphics will work out of the box under Linux.
I am very sad to hear that Intel isn't doing the same for their wireless
products WRT freely distributable firmware.
I am a developer in the Computing Services department at a 30 thousand
plus student university. Community enabled Linux support is a huge
factor in the purchasing decisions of our department.
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
This article was very scant on what exactly intel isn't supporting. All it says is some blurb about requiring folks to download firmware before they can use their OS of choice on intel hardware.
WHAT HARDWARE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
CPU? Chipset? NIC? Router? Switches? What.. What the hell are you complaining about? Bios updates for Motherboards?
I hate to bitch, but when you get some pretty good in depth stories rejected for lame hoopla like this, you get mad.
--toq
Not Holding My Breath (Score:4, Insightful)
not our enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
If you compare Intel to other motherboard, chipset, or processor manufacturers, you'll find they arguably have better documentation and support for end-user and IT people than any of their competitors. They also are one of the only manufacturers I've seen to use open-source projects like FreeDOS and ISOLINUX. In their server lineup they support Linux as much as anyone.
Since I'm not a developer I can't speak from a developer's perspective, but there seems to be a liking in this community to paint Intel with a brush of "evil tight-fisted corporation" when they're actually one of the few who act like they care.
Re:How is this to Intel's advantage? (Score:2, Insightful)
This was suspected as the reason why Sun did not release hardware docs for UltraSPARC III. Only very recently did
OpenBSD have working device drivers for UltraSPARC III.
Re:Be professional! (Score:5, Insightful)
2D (and 3D) algorithms are commodity, they are well known (most are published 20+ years ago) and large part of the card is designed towards a rather old, but still valid common standard (VESA). In addition to that there is no regulatory regime to deal with it. Having "super duper secrets" in a low-to-mid sector video parts makes no sense whatsoever.
Wireless chipsets operate with a mix of commodity and private algorithms, there is no common spec regarding the way the platform sees them and there standards specify only the external side and nothing on the OS side. In addition to that there is list of Frequency Nazies to deal in every country. All of them insist that any power, frequency and tuning parameters are private and inaccessible to Joe Average Luser. In a modern chipset these are done in firmware and having them secret and limited makes all the sense in the world to a manufacturer. They have to distribute it under strict conditions which limit its possible uses and forbid tampering. If they do not they will lose their license. This forces the license terms on Intel, Atheros, etc. They have no choice on the matter and writing billions of letters to them will be pointless. There will be no change of mind and the firmware will always be under a license that is OSS incompatible. The right addressee for the mail is FCC (and its analogues). It is their business to enforce frequency bands and they are taking the easy way out by passing this responsibility to the manufacturers. If we really want wireless OSS firmware (I doubt that) the enforcement method of the current FCC regime must change and FCC must allow the manufacturers to release such firmware.
Until then, no point to bother and Theo should vent some steam elsewhere. Plenty of new crypto processors around without support in OpenBSD (or elsewhere).
Not going to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Difference in Paradigm (Score:3, Insightful)
They see releasing that information as a threat to their MO. They think that if they start handing this stuff out for free their turning into a bunch of commies. And even though this community knows that isn't true, it doesn't help using ad homonym attacks against them by calling them 'big fat liars'. It looks childish and immature.
As for emailing? I don't think they give hoot whether a few geeks boycott them because they don't get open source drivers, mostly because there will always be someone else who will buy their product without qualms. Only if someone like Dell dropped Intel for such reasons would they begin to notice. What would happen if Apple and HP dropped them too? Sure they would wake up. But you know why none of them will do that? Because, they operate under the same paradigm. And 99.99999999999% of their customer base doesn't care because (to them) it's irrelevant.
Re:Yes, but: (Score:4, Insightful)
His writing was unhelpful, unproductive, unprofessional immature, and downright slanderous.
Re:Yes, but: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Intel open enough for me (Score:3, Insightful)
That shouldn't matter. One can still reverse-engineer the firmware and figure it out. This is like banning hammers because they can be used to break into stores. The responsibility should not be on the hardware/software side, but on the user side. I can still choose the wrong country when installing a wireless card to use a frequency that is illegal in my country (Norway).
Re:Yes, but: (Score:3, Insightful)
His writing was unhelpful, unproductive, unprofessional immature, and downright slanderous.
yet, his style always produces results, while perhaps offending some prudes. can you really blame him for that? i know i can't. RMS usually is very polite when crusading, and still people talk shit. i'm glad FOSS fellows like these are around, which just do their thing, and don't pay attention to the naysayers. i wish him the best of luck in this endeavour.
Re:Yes, but: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only slanderous* if it's not true.
*(libel actually)