IRC channel logs

<pabs3>oriansj: there is a bit more open firmware than just boot stuff, unfortunately not much https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware/Open

<pabs3> most of the talks seem to be about boot firmware and also BMC firmware (which is just Linux/etc IIRC)

<oriansj>pabs3: well yes. There is very little freedom entering the hardware space; probably because hardware scales differently than software.

<oriansj>think about how few free wireless cards exist; despite the insanely low margin cost of just giving some of your customers documentation so they can write their own drivers.

<pabs3>the free wifi firmware that does exist was due to companies releasing their internal code, or people doing reverse enginering, and one more that wasn't clear

<pabs3>(one company actually, atheros)

<pabs3>the free audio firmware that exists was due to intel releasing their internal code

<pabs3>so I think getting foss activists into hardware companies is a viable way to get libre firmware, it has certainly worked before, but not for long enough unfortunately

<muurkha>oriansj: competitors can sue you for patent infringement if they find out how your hardware works maybe

<muurkha>or improve their own

<muurkha>I think the main issue is that hardware people come from hardware culure, which has hardware values

<oriansj>muurkha: fair enough, reverse engineering to see if you can sue a company certainly costs more than just reading documentation.

<oriansj>and yes, hardware culture is very different than modern software culture.

<muurkha>oriansj: hardware culture is primarily shaped by the fact that your hardware design skills have no economic value if you don't have investors fronting the cost of the prototypes and scaling up production

<muurkha>so investors and management have enormously more power relative to builders

<oriansj>muurkha: sounds like we better start bootstrapping hardware in a very *big* way

<nektro>hardware culture is also shaped by that a lot of it is state secrets

<muurkha>nektro: that's not a relevant difference tho

<muurkha>oriansj: a very *small* way will be more productive

<oriansj>well some technologies depend upon mass (such as lathes) to obtain the desired tolerances

<oriansj>but yes, all progress will start out quite small

<clemens3>or go back to very old hardware

<clemens3>6502/6510 likely doesn't have backdoors and stuff

<clemens3>and move from there

<clemens3>and small stuff without enough room for them either, microcontrollers.. but into what to bootstrap from there..puh

<oriansj>clemens3: well I ordered a commander x16; with the plan of porting cc_* and mescc-tools to it

<clemens3>yeah

<clemens3>maybe for some tasks just stay on such hardware with airgap or what..

<muurkha>lathes depend on rigidity, not mass. mass is kind of the enemy

<clemens3>and then next is some basic communication/networking

<oriansj>but ultimately we will be making our own hardware designs and potentially our own hardware

<clemens3>well, you need the production/factory or some diy home lab

<clemens3>i assume the concern is security here..

<clemens3>open source is about control as well, agreed

<clemens3>but they are two different things

<muurkha>gardeners employ machinery far more complex than any microchip in the production of rosemary

<clemens3>for me software bootstrapping is also about understanding how to build, so i can change it if I want

<clemens3>for others here i guess it is about proving there are no backdoors, which is also fine

<clemens3>muurkha: yes, but some hobby gardeners use zero chips

<clemens3>and have good results too

<clemens3>to write a good novel a c64 would suffice too

<clemens3>or just a pencil

IRC channel logs

2023-10-24.log