Is Linux not free software itself? I thought propietary stuff was added downstream.
Am I getting something wrong?
The Linux-libre Wikipedia entry sums it up pretty well:
“According to the Free Software Foundation Latin America, Linux-libre is a modified version of the Linux kernel that contains no binary blobs, obfuscated code, or code released under proprietary licenses.[7] In the Linux kernel, they are mostly used for proprietary firmware images. While generally redistributable, binary blobs do not give the user the freedom to audit, modify, or, consequently, redistribute their modified versions. The GNU Project keeps Linux-libre in synchronization with the mainline Linux kernel.[8]”
Basically; some stuff in the kernel is either not free or not open but is included for convenience.
AFAIK, the Linux codebase is actually open source in its entirety. However it has parts that are capable of loading non-free stuff like firmware. The linux-libre project makes sure those parts are disabled.
Personally, I think it’s a fool’s errand as it would render most modern systems unusable (in the reasonable sense).
They also don’t apply such harsh judgement to firmware that resides in ROM, and only to firmware updates. In most of these cases you’d have systems with outdated firmwares with neither QoL nor security updates.
It exists because FSF. (watch Linus’s opinion on FSF) Unfortunately the FSF is full of obsessive people, who want politics to be an if-else problem. But that’s not how politics work, you always have to compromise somewhere. You cannot have hardware that uses open-source firmware, has schematics available, doesn’t use slave labor, is usable, is secure etc. You always have to choose between different evils.
But that’s not what the FSF does. They decided to draw a thick line through this blurry mess, so that these obsessive coders can have a digital high/low solution to this analog problem.
hm how do I continue…? It’s hard to explain because it does really make sense but I will try. So if some software runs on your computer and you can modify it from the OS, it has to be Open Source otherwise it’s not FSF big wholesum chungus certified. But if it runs on your PC and you cannot modify it from the OS, it can be closed source and still get the Chungus certification. What you end up with is that FSF recommends some old crap wifi cards running proprietary firmware because you cannot modify the firmware without external flashing. But it rules out new wifi cards that load the firmware during boot because the linux kernel cannot have proprietary software in it reeee. Obviously the latter situation is better for freedom because it’s at least easier to replace with Free firmware but they don’t care about that.
In other words Linux Libre exists only because of some stupid bureaucratic rule that actually harms Free Software instead of helping it.
Wait I haven’t told you about microcode updates! Microcode is proprietary software controlling your x86-64 CPU. Linux Libre does not include updates to this firmware even though the microcode is proprietary regardless. So with Linux Libre your CPU is controlled by code that is proprietary, broken and vulnerable to stuff like Spectre or Meltdown. This part is so stupid that it’s almost funny. (but it’s actually sad)
You know anyone is capable of telling the same thing, but about proprietary code or about that stance you have? Not everyone has to follow the FSF steps nor LInux-Libre, they’re there for people who want them and follows their principles. They do what they think is right and invest in that, you don’t so you don’t invest in that. I think it’s great for them to work in projects like GNU Health, Linux-Libre or even Hurd (if it’s even active) so we can see more free software development in the future and free software culture in things like health devices (which may or may not be inside your body). I agree with you about microcode, though, but I think AMD is working on opening some microcode in their GPUs (I’m not sure about CPUs), which is great! You can just do your own thing, I prefer to use free software when I can and settle with proprietary code I can’t change, other people likes to settle with proprietary systems and a small group likes to force free software in everything they can. I can still help with donations, reporting issues (my favorite part about FOSS/OSS is clear communication) and helping the community until I’m knowledgeable enough in programming.
Btw, I don’t think we have to always settle, we can still fight and get things changing for the better. It may take some time, but I think it’s worth it.
But that’s not how politics work, you always have to compromise somewhere
THAT IS how politics works. You have to always try to make as much noise in getting what you want with the hopes that once it comes to a compromise somewhere you end up in a better position.
The FSF has clear guidelines and follows them rigorously, nothing else. It’s good that they don’t make exceptions. Any problem with microcode or other proprietary drivers starts with the fact that they are not free. Making exceptions would partially solve the problem, but the situation would not change significantly, and the FSF would then be violating its own principles.
The FSF’s job in this regard is to try to open debate about the problems of not having free security patches and, in any case, to try to uncover hidden vulnerabilities in proprietary tools and facilitate the creation of free tools that solve the problems.
But their principles are bs to begin with. They decided what’s good and what’s bad based on completely arbitrary metric. It does not matter whether code is baked into hardware or is flashed in it during boot process. Proprietary is still proprietary.
They should fight for 100% free software and choose the lesser evil from there instead of fighting for the lesser evil (or imo the bigger evil) from the beginning.
Edit: Imo they are violating their own principles spiritually. They are just avoiding violating their own principles bureaucratically.
A lot of drivers for hardware are actually not open source, just unreadable binaries that do …something. No one knows exactly how they work, so some people consider them a security risk.
I think its because the linux kernel is GPL2, not the modern GPL3 like most free software, so I think thats why some components are allowed to be non-free. Not sure though.
So, that practice violates the spririt of free software. So some distributions have those components removed. Its safer, but you may lose functionality, depending on what computer components you have.
Its an important project, and judging by the other comments here, underappreciated.
Could we please stop associating open source with security? Don’t get me wrong, I love open source software and it is easier to trust open source software than proprietary, because it is highly unlikely, that they hide stuff like trackers in there. It is also most of the time highly configurable and sometimes even hackable and as a software developer you are able to look into the mechanisms behind the APIs which is sometimes really helpful.
But events like the lzma incident last year and predictable openssl RNG in Debian some time ago (https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2008/msg00152.html) should tell us, that open source doesn’t mean secure software. And the argument, that there are many people looking at the code is not really true. E.g. many maintainers of the linux kernel only look at specific parts/drivers in it and maybe into some other things they need for that. There are probably only a few people if any (apart from governments), that have read, understood and analyzed the linux kernel in its entirety with all the (open source) drivers built into it and all the possible combinations of configurations. And I don’t want to know how many have done all that for less popular projects. And even if that is done at some point for an upstream project, you would have to check the patches from your distro and if there are any do it all for yourself again. And when the next release arrives you would have to do all that in its entirety again (although with some head start) if a new version arrives (that has, say, at least a thousand lines of code changed, removed or added). And now think about how many big releases come with some software per year. And don’t forget to also include all the dependencies you have to check including the compiler and standard library of the language(s) used.
Of course it is easier to do all that for OSS as an outside party because you don’t have to decompile it, but it is still increadibly hard. And only to be easier to analyze for security risks doesn’t mean to be more secure just like packaging being recyclable doesn’t mean that it will be recycled.
Well, to run with your analogy, I prefer things to be recyclable then to just throw them away.
I agree with you - to a point. The linux kernel is too big and complex to understand all of it as a single person. However, its critical software. Meaning, we are not depending on some nerd to find a bug anymore. There are companies that look through critical code to check for security issues.
Now imagine I made some somewhat popular open source server software that saved passwords in plaintext. Chances are good, that by sometime next week ill have someone on the internet scream at me for that. With proprietary software, no one is coming.
(Maybe at the next code review, someone will say something, but proprietary software does not imply me working at a corporation, and corporation does not imply the software having to be closed source)
Open source does not guarantee 100% secure software, but it does make obvious lapses in judgement much less likely. And sometimes, there IS a nerd who will look through the code because they wanted a feature, and finds a critical bug. Like the person that found the xz backdoor. The chance for that happening with closed source is zero.
I agree because it is exactly what my claim is. It would still be foolish to say that open source software is by design more secure than proprietary. I know that this is not what you said and you most likely also don’t mean that, but there are enough people who think that way because they read everywhere that OSS=secure software.
Your example with xz however does not really hold imo. The xz bug was not found because xz is open source but because someone realized, that their ssh session build up took longer than usual and they then used valgrind to check for issues and not because they looked in the source code. It wasn’t even really an easy to spot backdoor because it was a malicious compressed file that changed the build process while running the tests and injecting the actual backdoor in the compiled file. Therfore this would have been found with proprietary software with the same likelyhood.
And regarding my analogy: I also like it more when things are recyclable, that is also why I like open source software more and have more trust in it. But now that I think about it, that wasn’t the best analogy I could’ve chosen but it was the first thing that came to my mind.
You explanation sums it all up thanks.
A lot of drivers for hardware are actually not open source, just unreadable binaries that do …something. No one knows exactly how they work, so some people consider them a security risk.
While I do understand the security aspect of this here at the same time those people seem to be delusional. At some point there’s proprietary stuff in our computers, be it a driver, a BIOS or the code that runs on the various microcontrollers that run low level functions from the USB ports to simple power management.
The most “security paranoid” organizations in the world usually run a lot of stuff on Windows and HP hardware full of opaque and proprietary code and they consider it “safe enough”.
I may get that not free / license based stuff might raise concerns if you aren’t a mega corp. that can pay the fee either way, but… if a trackpad requires a free but closed-source binary driver why would a random guy on the internet consider that to be a risk?
At some point there’s proprietary stuff in our bodies, be it a driver, a BIOS or the code that runs on the various microcontrollers that run low level functions from the USB ports to simple power management.
The most “security paranoid” organizations in the world usually run a lot of stuff on children and babies are full of opaque and proprietary code and they consider it “safe enough”.
People are replacing lost/damaged organs and limbs with computer-controlled hardware. The same problems that occur in computers that exist outside of humans will occur in computers inside of humans. Do you trust non-open drivers from Corporation X or Government Y in your eyes telling your brain what you do or don’t see?
That’s the extreme, of course, but it isn’t any less scary than computers you trust with your credit card, bank account, etc information.
Open source drivers means when corporation X goes under, your hardware still can work and isn’t automatically abandoned. It keeps more hardware out of landfills longer, with the ability to drastically reduce e-waste.
Do you trust non-open drivers from Corporation X or Government Y in your eyes telling your brain what you do or don’t see?
I agree with your point, but I find it very unlikely to have cutting edge medical technology using open-source software - after all those pacemaker / brain implant companies want to protect their research (and profits) - and I’m not even sure if a FOSS solution for that would ever get approved by any legal body.
That’s the extreme, of course, but it isn’t any less scary than computers you trust with your credit card, bank account, etc information.
All those systems that process your financial transitions run on tons of proprietary software and the banks and credit card companies believe that software is secure enough.
Open source drivers means when corporation X goes under, your hardware still can work and isn’t automatically abandoned. It keeps more hardware out of landfills longer, with the ability to drastically reduce e-waste.
This is probably the most reasonable thing about having open-source drivers… however hardware is diverse and complex and so are drivers. The community might not be able to maintain such the driver for specific-version-x-hardware I have because it might not have access to all the design documentation of the hardware nor the time to reverse engineer it. It might not be worth keeping a driver around if it only serves a few people because everyone is mostly on a different revision of the hardware or some other detail like that.
To be fair Linux removed support for 386, 486, floppy drives, “Carillo Ranch”, and a bunch of other older hardware recently… at some point the few users that still have a piece of tech won’t care about it because they can just replace it by a new and better alternative for cheap.
