Libreboot: Open Letter to the Free Software Community(libreboot.org)
libreboot.org
Libreboot: Open Letter to the Free Software Community
https://libreboot.org/#open-letter-to-the-free-software-community
225 comments
You would think that there enough geeks out there who are aware of the issues with Intel ME to do something about. But after this time the best we have is a nasty hack that can kind of disable it.
Don't we have the numbers (and quite frankly the money) to solve this issue at the root? Why can't we (the broader tech community) sell a laptop aimed principally at ourselves. Without Intel ME. Without closed-source firmware. No binary blobs.
Pardon the rant. I'll go back to being naive in silence.
Don't we have the numbers (and quite frankly the money) to solve this issue at the root? Why can't we (the broader tech community) sell a laptop aimed principally at ourselves. Without Intel ME. Without closed-source firmware. No binary blobs.
Pardon the rant. I'll go back to being naive in silence.
> But after this time the best we have is a nasty hack that can kind of disable it.
That's not true. We have the Novena. And the EOMA68 laptop is currently being worked on here: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
Have a look at the past few months of messages on the EOMA mailing list to get a sense of the intricacies involved in shipping such a product: http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
But even if the EOMA68 laptop ships, it must ship with the mali-400 gpu disabled to be fully free because that gpu doesn't have a fully free driver.
So to answer your question about numbers, let me ask here: can anyone reverse-engineer the mali-400 and write a shader compiler for it in their spare time?
That's not true. We have the Novena. And the EOMA68 laptop is currently being worked on here: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
Have a look at the past few months of messages on the EOMA mailing list to get a sense of the intricacies involved in shipping such a product: http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
But even if the EOMA68 laptop ships, it must ship with the mali-400 gpu disabled to be fully free because that gpu doesn't have a fully free driver.
So to answer your question about numbers, let me ask here: can anyone reverse-engineer the mali-400 and write a shader compiler for it in their spare time?
> can anyone reverse-engineer the mali-400 and write a shader compiler for it in their spare time?
I don't believe this is the hardest part (though surely not easy). In my opinion the much harder part is to do it (and be able to show that you did it) in a way that is 100% legal (i.e. strong conditions on clean room reverse engineering etc.).
So for example a few years ago some PowerVR driver source code was leaked (cf. for example http://libv.livejournal.com/26972.html). Of course you are not allowed to use it to build some "open" Linux driver for PowerVR GPUs. We could easily have some PowerVR GPU driver with source code available. The only reason why this does not exist yet is that people care about legality.
I don't believe this is the hardest part (though surely not easy). In my opinion the much harder part is to do it (and be able to show that you did it) in a way that is 100% legal (i.e. strong conditions on clean room reverse engineering etc.).
So for example a few years ago some PowerVR driver source code was leaked (cf. for example http://libv.livejournal.com/26972.html). Of course you are not allowed to use it to build some "open" Linux driver for PowerVR GPUs. We could easily have some PowerVR GPU driver with source code available. The only reason why this does not exist yet is that people care about legality.
Well, when 1000+ hackers have domain expertise you typically end up with at least a handful of projects containing working code. That's even if the code itself lives in a legally grey area. (Remember the various Popcorn Time forks?)
So I don't think legality is the fundamental issue. Rather, I think it's that there are probably only 2 people with the domain expertise necessary to lead a successful reverse-engineering project of this particular chip.
As a general response to the grandparent: I think the reason we don't have an affordable, fully-free modern laptop is because it requires many components for which the free software world only has a handful of domain experts. In other words, such a laptop is in the category of problems for which hackers tend to vastly overestimate their potential resources. (I think secure messaging applications also fall into this same category.)
So I don't think legality is the fundamental issue. Rather, I think it's that there are probably only 2 people with the domain expertise necessary to lead a successful reverse-engineering project of this particular chip.
As a general response to the grandparent: I think the reason we don't have an affordable, fully-free modern laptop is because it requires many components for which the free software world only has a handful of domain experts. In other words, such a laptop is in the category of problems for which hackers tend to vastly overestimate their potential resources. (I think secure messaging applications also fall into this same category.)
Don't we have the numbers (and quite frankly the money) to solve this issue at the root?
Consider that there's a probably not-small team at Intel responsible for designing and implementing ME. All of them have decided, either explicitly or implicitly, to willingly follow the company plan and keep ME secret. How many of those would, if there were no negative consequence to themselves, defect and leak everything they knew about it (including the critical private keys)? As it is, a handful doing it would be sued into oblivion, but if everyone working on ME somehow decided to defect, it wouldn't be easy to stop them.
Just like with those who work on designing and implementing DRM and other anti-user features, I've always wondered: do these people genuinely believe that they are an overall good and actively promote/advocate for them, or do they personally oppose, but take the job because of some other factors and decide not to stand up for themselves due to the consequences? I mean, if I were forced to work on such things, I would likely not make them so strong and maybe even introduce some weaknesses, because I am fundamentally opposed to it.
Consider that there's a probably not-small team at Intel responsible for designing and implementing ME. All of them have decided, either explicitly or implicitly, to willingly follow the company plan and keep ME secret. How many of those would, if there were no negative consequence to themselves, defect and leak everything they knew about it (including the critical private keys)? As it is, a handful doing it would be sued into oblivion, but if everyone working on ME somehow decided to defect, it wouldn't be easy to stop them.
Just like with those who work on designing and implementing DRM and other anti-user features, I've always wondered: do these people genuinely believe that they are an overall good and actively promote/advocate for them, or do they personally oppose, but take the job because of some other factors and decide not to stand up for themselves due to the consequences? I mean, if I were forced to work on such things, I would likely not make them so strong and maybe even introduce some weaknesses, because I am fundamentally opposed to it.
I work on security software that is embedded in many devices, which allows for DRM use-cases.
First off, there is no good reason (well, other than typical business reasons) of keeping the stuff closed source. The only thing really needing secrecy are the various secret keys (generated on device), basically. The argument that we accept from management is essentially that it is a competitive advantage to stay closed source, for now.
I've not heard very good arguments against DRM that aren't anchored to the ownership problem Doctorow is often quoted on, i.e. OEMs/vendors are the owners and not the end consumer. In a world of more distributed ownership (that I think is still possible; would love to see a class action against some OEMs), you could have a more distributed DRM, which would be very interesting.
I would love to hear pros/cons about DRM that are not just arguments about ownership.
First off, there is no good reason (well, other than typical business reasons) of keeping the stuff closed source. The only thing really needing secrecy are the various secret keys (generated on device), basically. The argument that we accept from management is essentially that it is a competitive advantage to stay closed source, for now.
I've not heard very good arguments against DRM that aren't anchored to the ownership problem Doctorow is often quoted on, i.e. OEMs/vendors are the owners and not the end consumer. In a world of more distributed ownership (that I think is still possible; would love to see a class action against some OEMs), you could have a more distributed DRM, which would be very interesting.
I would love to hear pros/cons about DRM that are not just arguments about ownership.
> including the critical private keys
If anyone actually has access to those keys in a manner in which they could be leaked, that is... utterly terrifying. Like the private keys for root CAs, they likely are under strict access controls making exfiltration quite difficult (hopefully impossible barring multiple levels of process breakdown)
If anyone actually has access to those keys in a manner in which they could be leaked, that is... utterly terrifying. Like the private keys for root CAs, they likely are under strict access controls making exfiltration quite difficult (hopefully impossible barring multiple levels of process breakdown)
For a first attempt at an ME-less system it would suffice to have them sign a firmware that completely disables it, and while I don't think I've ever heard of a CA leaking its private keys, there are plenty of instances where CAs have issued "rogue" certificates. (Who knows, maybe the NSA has already gotten Intel to sign their own backdoored version...)
multiple levels of process breakdown
...which is exactly the "everyone working on ME decides to defect" situation I mentioned.
multiple levels of process breakdown
...which is exactly the "everyone working on ME decides to defect" situation I mentioned.
> Don't we have the numbers (and quite frankly the money) to solve this issue at the root?
With the amount of people on this site who come from tech and entrepreneurial backgrounds, I bet we could fix this issue 10-fold
With the amount of people on this site who come from tech and entrepreneurial backgrounds, I bet we could fix this issue 10-fold
I'm sure those people see this question through a different lens than you and me. But your question is totally spot on. It'd be great if someone could shed some light on this dark spot.
> Don't we have the numbers (and quite frankly the money) to solve this issue at the root? Why can't we (the broader tech community) sell a laptop aimed principally at ourselves.
That's a really noble aim, and "we" totally could. But it'd cost millions of dollars in setup capital, the end product would cost significantly more than its competition, and it'd be from a restricted and likely heavily performance-impacted set of components.
Given those restrictions, convincing the people with the money to back it that people won't just keep using Macs or off-the-rack PCs seems like a tall order. I mean, I called it a noble effort in honesty but I probably wouldn't use one because my calculus is such that having commonly-used, high-performance stuff matters more to me right now.
That's a really noble aim, and "we" totally could. But it'd cost millions of dollars in setup capital, the end product would cost significantly more than its competition, and it'd be from a restricted and likely heavily performance-impacted set of components.
Given those restrictions, convincing the people with the money to back it that people won't just keep using Macs or off-the-rack PCs seems like a tall order. I mean, I called it a noble effort in honesty but I probably wouldn't use one because my calculus is such that having commonly-used, high-performance stuff matters more to me right now.
I don't think ME is a performance related feature
I completely agree. I'm surprised by how many people who know about the ME are so blasé about it - it may have some features useful to some people, some of the time, but as a whole the IME is malware. If there were a comparable chip at twice the price, I would happily buy it.
While the present may look grim, I keep my fingers crossed for that lowRISC processor - they should be out this year, optimistically. On the other hand, X200 is good enough for my laptop needs, and while I don't have one yet, an ASUS KGPE-D16 workstation is one hell of a beast - 32 cores, up to 256 GB or RAM.
Well -- do AMD chips have it or something like it?
They have it. Removing it was the #1 question on the AMA on Reddit last month: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_crea...
I believe this is their equivalent:
http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/s...
Not sure if you can turn it off, or buy a decent cpu without it.
http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/s...
Not sure if you can turn it off, or buy a decent cpu without it.
Of course they do - you'd think that they would just lag behind, while Intel is implementing it's malware, and selling it to corporations? It's called AMD PSP
Both AMD and Intel fail the test. From the Libreboot FAQs
> It is unlikely that any post-2008 Intel hardware will ever be supported in libreboot, due to severe security and freedom issues; so severe, that the libreboot project recommends avoiding all modern Intel hardware
> It is extremely unlikely that any post-2013 AMD hardware will ever be supported in libreboot, due to severe security and freedom issues; so severe, that the libreboot project recommends avoiding all modern AMD hardware.
One wonders what we are left with and where Libreboot will be in five years, when all the hardware it can run on will be obsolete.
It seems somebody managed to disable ME on some hardware, let's hope there is more to come. However I am not hopeful that they'll be able to do it quickly for newly released processors.
> It is unlikely that any post-2008 Intel hardware will ever be supported in libreboot, due to severe security and freedom issues; so severe, that the libreboot project recommends avoiding all modern Intel hardware
> It is extremely unlikely that any post-2013 AMD hardware will ever be supported in libreboot, due to severe security and freedom issues; so severe, that the libreboot project recommends avoiding all modern AMD hardware.
One wonders what we are left with and where Libreboot will be in five years, when all the hardware it can run on will be obsolete.
It seems somebody managed to disable ME on some hardware, let's hope there is more to come. However I am not hopeful that they'll be able to do it quickly for newly released processors.
Thanks, that looks interesting, even in spite of the less than ideal specs.
Awesome project, but it maxes out at 4GB due to the 32bit CPU.
[deleted]
Doesn't physical adress extension (PAE) circumvent this problem? Then you are just limited to 4GB per process (or thread, can't remember), but that's a lot better.
Physical adress extension (PAE; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension) is a feature of x86 CPUs, not ARM ones.
ARMv7a has the same thing (called LPAE by ARM).
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc....
That being said, the Cortex A9 in the iMX6 doesn't support that, and therefore it only supports 3840MB (4GB minus a hole for ROM and MMIO).
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc....
That being said, the Cortex A9 in the iMX6 doesn't support that, and therefore it only supports 3840MB (4GB minus a hole for ROM and MMIO).
It is, I hope other parties share the sentiment and are ready to move back to peaceful collaboration.
Good luck to gnu and libreboot
Good luck to gnu and libreboot
> I hope that any damage I caused to the community is not permanent.
While I believe Leah is honest about realizing her mistakes, I fear this part is unreasonably optimistic.
Libreboot as a project has clearly been tainted all across the internet, and we all know how long these things persist when they've first been given a chance to take hold.
I'd love free firmware though so let's hope whatever stains remain won't be too damaging for these projects as a whole (coreboot, librecore and libreboot).
While I believe Leah is honest about realizing her mistakes, I fear this part is unreasonably optimistic.
Libreboot as a project has clearly been tainted all across the internet, and we all know how long these things persist when they've first been given a chance to take hold.
I'd love free firmware though so let's hope whatever stains remain won't be too damaging for these projects as a whole (coreboot, librecore and libreboot).
Meh. People have short memories, especially about internet drama. Most people probably didn't pay any attention to the drama to begin with and are only concerned with whether or not the project is stable going forward.
>People have short memories, especially about internet drama
Hardly. Sony rootkit, Debian OpenSSL issue from 2008, Reddit CEO spez changing reddit user comments, and many more are things that I see pop up on a weekly basis here on HN, daily on reddit or /.
Hardly. Sony rootkit, Debian OpenSSL issue from 2008, Reddit CEO spez changing reddit user comments, and many more are things that I see pop up on a weekly basis here on HN, daily on reddit or /.
I think people, especially here on HN, recognize that humans in general are fallible, and I think the incidents you mention have been largely forgiven or forgotten, at least by the respective public of each company.
Personally, I would be the least forgiving of the issues that were not accidents or were even a company policy, such as the Sony rootkit or the Lenovo Superfish rootkit. I can put the Reddit incident in the same box as this Libreboot drama; personal hardship that spirals out of control very publicly.
Personally, I would be the least forgiving of the issues that were not accidents or were even a company policy, such as the Sony rootkit or the Lenovo Superfish rootkit. I can put the Reddit incident in the same box as this Libreboot drama; personal hardship that spirals out of control very publicly.
I haven't and likely wont forget Debian for their SSL mistake... security people have long memories when you mess up THAT badly.
I forgot all of those.
Hell I couldn't even remember if it was libreboot or openboot that had drama.
Hell I couldn't even remember if it was libreboot or openboot that had drama.
Well, my own piece of annecdata, the main thing I've heard about Libreboot was the drama, so when I heard its named brought up, it was the first thing I thought of.
What drama? I didn't even realize there was one.
For better or worse, Sony, Debian and Reddit are all going strong. Internet dramas mean very little. There was a shitstorm about Uber every other month for the past few years; hell, there's one even now on the HN front page. Each time I hoped the company will finally crumble and die, but no, they're going forward as strong as ever.
For better or worse, Sony, Debian and Reddit are all going strong. Internet dramas mean very little. There was a shitstorm about Uber every other month for the past few years; hell, there's one even now on the HN front page. Each time I hoped the company will finally crumble and die, but no, they're going forward as strong as ever.
The stories you mention are remembered because they are substantial problems, hard to forgive and leaving a black marks on the respective guilty parties, while Leah Rowe severing ties with the FSF is only relatively harmless drama (civil and barely dramatic, with the final apology more intense and memorable than the initial flame).
As far as I know places like Slashdot and Reddit, they will keep flaming Leah Rowe for decades to come but the Libreboot project itself will be spared now that they have distanced themselves from her actions.
Some of us remember (some) of those, but how many of us have changed behaviour over it?
I didn't even know about it, and I've kinda vaguely kept an eye on Libreboot since it launched (I even used to subscribe to the LinuxBIOS dev list when it launched like two decades ago, so it's an ongoing, if only mild, interest).
I certainly don't consider the project perpetually tainted. People fuck up. People deal with mental illness. People sometimes have poor interpersonal skills (this is not uncommon in technical communities...several BDFLs are widely regarded to be assholes to varying degree). All I usually want from someone is an admission of what went wrong, and a sincere effort to never repeat it and to apologize to the folks directly harmed.
I don't know enough about this to say who owes who an apology or who ought to be making amends. But, really, people have been assholes on the internet since...probably the first day the internet existed. If we let that stop us from working on cool stuff, OSS and the open internet would not be what it is today (hmmm...I guess the internet being what it is today isn't exactly a bragging point or proof of my argument).
I certainly don't consider the project perpetually tainted. People fuck up. People deal with mental illness. People sometimes have poor interpersonal skills (this is not uncommon in technical communities...several BDFLs are widely regarded to be assholes to varying degree). All I usually want from someone is an admission of what went wrong, and a sincere effort to never repeat it and to apologize to the folks directly harmed.
I don't know enough about this to say who owes who an apology or who ought to be making amends. But, really, people have been assholes on the internet since...probably the first day the internet existed. If we let that stop us from working on cool stuff, OSS and the open internet would not be what it is today (hmmm...I guess the internet being what it is today isn't exactly a bragging point or proof of my argument).
The fact that reason was able to take hold and get things back on track actually gives me more hope for this project.
Hopefully this be a lesson to others as well.
Hopefully this be a lesson to others as well.
I think that the other contributors actually held out long enough to let her come to her senses speaks for the project. They seem to be invested enough to actually spend six months seeing the project be dragged through the mud and still come back and work with her.
Didn't the other contributors leave to join a fork?
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Librecor...
http://librecore.info/
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Librecor...
http://librecore.info/
I was specifically referring to the contributors that didn't leave. The open letter was penned by someone other than Leah, so no matter how many have left, some of them seem to have stayed.
[deleted]
In politics, memories are short. A year from now nobody will even care.
I'm not familiar with the issue, were other developers not able to do a hard fork of the code base and continue without her?
They did - librecore; but not much work was done on it. Libreboot is a build system more than anything else - and to be honest, that jungle of bash scripts - I'd rather see it rewriten from scratch, rather than forked. To answer your question - they kinda forked it, and kinda not.
I guess I'm officially part of the greybeards now. This sort of thing just makes me feel tired. I know it's naive to want your engineering projects to come without politics and drama (hell, I'm less than a decade junior to Stallman, I was there for some of the reasons politics came in), but part of me is all "just fork the damn code and let's move on".
I think it's naive to believe there's something that comes politics-free at all. Engineers can be keen to get stuff done without political disputes, but from personal experience, that mostly just means not challenging anything taken for granted.
I think the very existence of the FSF is proof of the fact that you can't take politics out of even basic engineering questions. The real assumption is that anything apolitical is doing something more than pandering to your views.
I think the very existence of the FSF is proof of the fact that you can't take politics out of even basic engineering questions. The real assumption is that anything apolitical is doing something more than pandering to your views.
Keeping politics out of work is just simple professionalism.
Sure, be an activist, but keep it out of work and do it on your own time.
Sure, be an activist, but keep it out of work and do it on your own time.
Professionalism is very political. It's just mainstream, so from the inside it appears to participants as apolitical. Ask someone whose accent or hair texture is "unprofessional" or who can't afford "professional" clothing whether professionalism is political.
Free software is explicitly a political movement.
It is a mistake to assume everything done within work hours is apolitical.
It is a mistake to assume everything done within work hours is apolitical.
> Free software is explicitly a political movement.
Yes, but it's a specific political theme. It's not a blank cheque for instrumentalizing your FOSS work for every topic you personally find important.
Yes, but it's a specific political theme. It's not a blank cheque for instrumentalizing your FOSS work for every topic you personally find important.
The problem here isn't the politics, it's the mission creep. Libreboot has clear techno-political goals, to free our hardware from the shackles of BIOS and UEFI.
It wasn't created to serve as a vehicle to protest a case of alleged sexual discrimination against a friend in a different project.
There are many ways to protest at perceived injustice, but I don't think derailing a volunteer project to do that is good for the movement as a whole.
It wasn't created to serve as a vehicle to protest a case of alleged sexual discrimination against a friend in a different project.
There are many ways to protest at perceived injustice, but I don't think derailing a volunteer project to do that is good for the movement as a whole.
Sadly, the sort of activists we're talking about here seem to believe that their activism should pervade every aspect of their lives.
If you assume the false accusation was true, ignoring it would not be professional and it would be impossible to keep it to your own time. The mistake was the public and hasty reaction, not politics.
If the false accusation was true then there would be a lawsuit by now. Trial by social media can never provide true justice, only an ugly exchange of accusations that harms all parties involved. That's why we should keep personal matters out of the front page of software projects.
Yes, the public and hasty reaction was inappropriate. This is a very different claim than keeping politics out of the project.
Part of the problem is this: who'd fork it? Who'd put in the effort? Sure, they alienated key members, but the people doing the bulk of the work were at the core, including Leah.
So, it's not so simple as forking and coming back when the dust has settled.
So, it's not so simple as forking and coming back when the dust has settled.
There were actually enough pissed off core members to pull off a fork - what was missing was a leader.
We'll see how all this ends up - but given Leah track record - the whole "leaving the GNU project", the allegations, her aggressive behavior towards competition - don't instill me a lot of confidence that the dust is settled for good.
Look at this for example - censorship happened just 3 days ago - they only reverted the issue after community backlash https://trisquel.info/en/forum/libreboot-issues-open-letter-...
We'll see how all this ends up - but given Leah track record - the whole "leaving the GNU project", the allegations, her aggressive behavior towards competition - don't instill me a lot of confidence that the dust is settled for good.
Look at this for example - censorship happened just 3 days ago - they only reverted the issue after community backlash https://trisquel.info/en/forum/libreboot-issues-open-letter-...
If someone was missing, then there wasn't enough people.
It's a bit nuanced, but I guess you're right. There's the librecore thing - but AFAIK they didn't reach out to coop the other developers, they didn't publish their own builds, and the inertia was lost. What could be the straw that breaks the camel's back - would be for Leah to piss off Paul Kocialkowski, as he's the guy who wrote a big chunk of libreboot (especially the newer parts of the system, with the chromebooks); But time will tell.
IMHO all of this personal drama is a sideshow compared to the inability to support modern Intel or AMD hardware. I know they're working on enabling ARM Chromebooks now, but without support for Intel or AMD it's hard to see how this project isn't dead in the water.
You act like that is the project's fault though.
The whole point of libreboot is to be a purely free software alternative and they can't do that with modern AMD/Intel.
Sure, that means the project will never be mainstream but it doesn't mean it is dead in the water.
The whole point of libreboot is to be a purely free software alternative and they can't do that with modern AMD/Intel.
Sure, that means the project will never be mainstream but it doesn't mean it is dead in the water.
There's been some hacks recently that have managed to nerf the ME on sandy/ivybridge. It's still a blob but it disables a lot of the other functionality so there's hope for newer hardware.
Even if it is not their fault it is still their problem.
If more people were willing to take the step to arm and sacrifice the performance, this could move forward faster.
And there's a strong security reason to do so. I am motivated to buy an Arm machine which will be soley responsible for my:
+ Email
+ Banking
+ Cryptocurrency
Because none of those take too much power, and they are all very security sensitive.
And there's a strong security reason to do so. I am motivated to buy an Arm machine which will be soley responsible for my:
+ Banking
+ Cryptocurrency
Because none of those take too much power, and they are all very security sensitive.
Is there a favorite one I can buy now? Or a least unfavored?
For now I think the best completely-open device is Bunnie Huang's Novena laptop: https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/novena
The software and motherboard schematics are totally open. It includes an mPCIe wifi card (Ath9k) specifically to avoid binary blob firmware.
The software and motherboard schematics are totally open. It includes an mPCIe wifi card (Ath9k) specifically to avoid binary blob firmware.
Thanks -- I'd heard of that but didn't realize it was still/again for sale.
Asus Chromebook C100 Flip, but with a wifi dongle - if you want something new.
If something refurbished is okay, go for a X200; they are pretty good machines. Here's the best part - a Chromebook, without the proprietary Mali drivers, it slow as a piece of shit; an X200 - I can watch a tear-free full-HD movie while compiling something in the background, with both cores at 100%.
Libiquity, Tehnoetic and Vikings still sell those laptops. Or flash one yourself, it's not that hard, and you need like.. 100$ worth of equipment.
If something refurbished is okay, go for a X200; they are pretty good machines. Here's the best part - a Chromebook, without the proprietary Mali drivers, it slow as a piece of shit; an X200 - I can watch a tear-free full-HD movie while compiling something in the background, with both cores at 100%.
Libiquity, Tehnoetic and Vikings still sell those laptops. Or flash one yourself, it's not that hard, and you need like.. 100$ worth of equipment.
> + Cryptocurrency
LOL. I see a "Sorry for your loss" in your future.
LOL. I see a "Sorry for your loss" in your future.
> wants a free cpu
> gives money to companies that sell very closed cpus.
> blame people making some closed cpus free.
:(
> gives money to companies that sell very closed cpus.
> blame people making some closed cpus free.
:(
> At this point, it doesn’t matter. Indeed, it is unlikely that Libreboot will ever rejoin GNU, but feuding in an already fragmented community helps nobody.
how is this not paradoxical/delusional?
oh boy, here we go again. An apology full of grandiose but still standing on the previous stubborn point. That is not how apologies work.
how is this not paradoxical/delusional?
oh boy, here we go again. An apology full of grandiose but still standing on the previous stubborn point. That is not how apologies work.
It's possible the FSF doesn't want them back without terms they find onerous, like full dissolution of the team and just handing over the brand.
Exactly what I was thinking. Admitting it was all BS, yet still sticking with it. Probably already making stuff up like that they where indeed biased against "her" because - micro aggression's showed it in their faces or whatever they come up with these days.
Nobody "admitted it was all BS". All was said was that the reaction was poor.
To me saying "maybe, maybe not". "substance abuse" "gender dysphoria" "sorry sorry sorry" tel me that is was all BS. To me it was admitted between the lines.
[deleted]
An apology full of grandiose but still standing on the previous stubborn point. That is not how apologies work.
The person writing what you quoted isn't apologizing, so I'm not sure what you're on about.
The person writing what you quoted isn't apologizing, so I'm not sure what you're on about.
This is a message one rarely gets to read and I'm happy to see it: rather than having an endless flamewar and a person being put out of the project, at least from the project's side people are just moving on and the number one priority is simply the project. These things drag on way too long too often.
This is the first and only thing I read about what apparently happened, so I might miss some details, but the basic message I'm seeing is "actions regretted, won't happen again, also more people have access now, let's get this thing back on track".
This is the first and only thing I read about what apparently happened, so I might miss some details, but the basic message I'm seeing is "actions regretted, won't happen again, also more people have access now, let's get this thing back on track".
Because I'm unfamiliar with the project, can someone provide some context as to what happened ?
It's pretty much there in the letter.
Leah had exclusive control of libreboot. Leah is transgender. The FSF fired someone who happened to be transgender. Leah accused the FSF of doing it because they were transgender. Leah pulled libreboot out of the FSF, burned various bridges by calling people names and retained exclusive control of libreboot, making statements in the project's name.
Apparently she changed her mind and libreboot has transitioned into a more democratic project and she's sorry for what she did and cites personal issues which the letter spells out as gender dysphoria and substance abuse.
A quick googling shows that both the FSF and Leah have mostly refrained from naming names when talking about who got fired but Leah explicitly called out individual members of the FSF (which she apologises for in the letter, indicating she no longer thinks her accusations hold any water). There are also various posts from libreboot contributors complaining about Leah having effectively locked them out of the project and apparently the entire ordeal didn't exactly result in quality software releases (which is to be expected).
tl;dr: maintainer with exclusive access has personal problems, lashes out against FSF, takes project hostage, works personal problems out over the next six months, hands control over project to the other contributors and repents.
Leah had exclusive control of libreboot. Leah is transgender. The FSF fired someone who happened to be transgender. Leah accused the FSF of doing it because they were transgender. Leah pulled libreboot out of the FSF, burned various bridges by calling people names and retained exclusive control of libreboot, making statements in the project's name.
Apparently she changed her mind and libreboot has transitioned into a more democratic project and she's sorry for what she did and cites personal issues which the letter spells out as gender dysphoria and substance abuse.
A quick googling shows that both the FSF and Leah have mostly refrained from naming names when talking about who got fired but Leah explicitly called out individual members of the FSF (which she apologises for in the letter, indicating she no longer thinks her accusations hold any water). There are also various posts from libreboot contributors complaining about Leah having effectively locked them out of the project and apparently the entire ordeal didn't exactly result in quality software releases (which is to be expected).
tl;dr: maintainer with exclusive access has personal problems, lashes out against FSF, takes project hostage, works personal problems out over the next six months, hands control over project to the other contributors and repents.
> indicating she no longer thinks her accusations hold any water
This is the only thing in your summary I disagree with. From my reading of the issue and knowledge from following it I think Leah still very much believes in her accusations. She just has realized that at this point even if she's right nothing positive is going to happen and realizes she handled the whole situation awfully so is apologizing for that.
I didn't read anything that suggested that she didn't think the accusations were true anymore.
This is the only thing in your summary I disagree with. From my reading of the issue and knowledge from following it I think Leah still very much believes in her accusations. She just has realized that at this point even if she's right nothing positive is going to happen and realizes she handled the whole situation awfully so is apologizing for that.
I didn't read anything that suggested that she didn't think the accusations were true anymore.
I didn't get that.
What I got was that she thinks her prior actions, although incorrectly reasoned, were still reasoned.
It's almost but importantly not identical to "Based on what I knew at the time, I was correct. Based on what I now know, I was incorrect" - except that part of the "what I knew" was how herself was functioning.
As a child, I always used to hate the phrase "that's just an excuse". I'd do something my parents didn't like, they'd ask why, I'd answer, they'd reply - that's just an excuse. It's not, it's the causal reason [that I could identify].
She saying she did things based on actual reasons. She's also saying that those reasons, in hindsight, were wrong, and that those resulting actions were wrong. She's accurately reporting the emotional states at the relevant times. This is a good thing.
What I got was that she thinks her prior actions, although incorrectly reasoned, were still reasoned.
It's almost but importantly not identical to "Based on what I knew at the time, I was correct. Based on what I now know, I was incorrect" - except that part of the "what I knew" was how herself was functioning.
As a child, I always used to hate the phrase "that's just an excuse". I'd do something my parents didn't like, they'd ask why, I'd answer, they'd reply - that's just an excuse. It's not, it's the causal reason [that I could identify].
She saying she did things based on actual reasons. She's also saying that those reasons, in hindsight, were wrong, and that those resulting actions were wrong. She's accurately reporting the emotional states at the relevant times. This is a good thing.
I hope she is OK now. I was horrified to see that certain people on IRC were egging her on, when this all started.
the cynic in me suspects the apology is a result of Leah's bottom line being seriously affected: Leah has a business that sells libreboot based products
I'm also missing a lot of context here, but I was looking at the leter and she says she's especially sorry she slandered John Sullivan and Ruben Rodriguez.
Wondering exactly how she slandered those two people in particular, I tried googling her name and those two and got some archived mailinglist (and later checked an archived version of her own denounciation of the FSF on the libreboot.org page). She seems to have wanted to see those two people fired. But also another one - Stephen Mahood (who she names "the bully" on the archived page https://web.archive.org/web/20170114100921/https://libreboot... ) . On an archived mail she seems to call both Stephen and Ruben the bullies. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg0005...
Given that her heaviest accusations are leveled (also) against Stephen, and that she feels she especially needs to apologise to the other two guys but NOT to Stephen, should we conclude that she still believes at least that guy was guilty of bullying the unnamend transgendered employee of the FSF?
Wondering exactly how she slandered those two people in particular, I tried googling her name and those two and got some archived mailinglist (and later checked an archived version of her own denounciation of the FSF on the libreboot.org page). She seems to have wanted to see those two people fired. But also another one - Stephen Mahood (who she names "the bully" on the archived page https://web.archive.org/web/20170114100921/https://libreboot... ) . On an archived mail she seems to call both Stephen and Ruben the bullies. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg0005...
Given that her heaviest accusations are leveled (also) against Stephen, and that she feels she especially needs to apologise to the other two guys but NOT to Stephen, should we conclude that she still believes at least that guy was guilty of bullying the unnamend transgendered employee of the FSF?
Everybody has personal problems.
To put her issues in perspective, suicide rates for transgender individuals are around 45%.
It doesn't excuse her childish actions but it helps understand the burden and stress transgender individuals are constantly under.
It doesn't excuse her childish actions but it helps understand the burden and stress transgender individuals are constantly under.
I wasn't implying that she shouldn't do these things, or that her problems don't matter. Quite the contrary, the previous comment tl;dr could be understood as saying that she was an exception because she had personal problems.
[deleted]
*suicide _attempt_ rates
That's also self-reporting to the single question "have you ever attempted suicide?" without probing for an actual intent to die. In other surveys this has found to be about double the rate compared to when something would qualify as a suicide attempt to a mental health professional.
Do you have any sources?
This is the actual study that found the stat: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AF...
This and other limitations are located in the aptly named "Methods and Limitations" section.
This and other limitations are located in the aptly named "Methods and Limitations" section.
So even if we cut the 41% in half we still get 20%, which is much higher than the 4.6% (or 2.7%) of the general population.
The underlying facts are not controversial - being transgender puts someone at considerably higher risk of dying by suicide, of attempting suicide, and of having suicidal ideation.
One of the problems we have is that coroners refuse to gather this kind of information, and a bunch of suicide stats are still tied to coroner's decisions.
The underlying facts are not controversial - being transgender puts someone at considerably higher risk of dying by suicide, of attempting suicide, and of having suicidal ideation.
One of the problems we have is that coroners refuse to gather this kind of information, and a bunch of suicide stats are still tied to coroner's decisions.
From the same section: "The lack of systematic mental health information in the NTDS data significanty limited our ability to identify the pathways to suicidal behavior among the respondents."
IOW "being transgender" cannot be identified as a factor putting someone at higher risk. It could be comorbid mental health issues, it could be adverse life experiences related to being transgender or gender-nonconforming.
IOW "being transgender" cannot be identified as a factor putting someone at higher risk. It could be comorbid mental health issues, it could be adverse life experiences related to being transgender or gender-nonconforming.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
Adverse life experiences related to being transgender is exactly what we man when we say "being transgender inceases a person's risk of death by suicide".
There's no judgement of trans people in that comment - indeed, the point is to make society more accepting of trans people.
Adverse life experiences related to being transgender is exactly what we man when we say "being transgender inceases a person's risk of death by suicide".
There's no judgement of trans people in that comment - indeed, the point is to make society more accepting of trans people.
In this specific case, my point is meant to caution people (like another commenter) from considering surgical and hormonal transition a "cure" that can reduce this suicide attempt rate, whatever the actual number turns out to be.
The data simply does not support that conclusion, according to the study itself.
"Respondents who said they had received transition related health care or wanted to have it someday were more likely to report having attempted suicide than those who said they did not want it."
"The survey did not provide information about the timing of reported suicide attempts in relation to receiving transition-related health care, which precluded investigation of transition-related explanations for these patterns."
I agree that society should be more accepting of gender-nonconforming people regardless of their gender identity or approach to transition, if any. I wonder if this lack of acceptance is the cause of suicide, rather than dysphoria which in some cases is alleviated through medical intervention.
The data simply does not support that conclusion, according to the study itself.
"Respondents who said they had received transition related health care or wanted to have it someday were more likely to report having attempted suicide than those who said they did not want it."
"The survey did not provide information about the timing of reported suicide attempts in relation to receiving transition-related health care, which precluded investigation of transition-related explanations for these patterns."
I agree that society should be more accepting of gender-nonconforming people regardless of their gender identity or approach to transition, if any. I wonder if this lack of acceptance is the cause of suicide, rather than dysphoria which in some cases is alleviated through medical intervention.
> suicide rates for transgender individuals are around 45%.
If that were true, it would be alarming and possibly grounds for involuntary commitment based on someone being trans.
Fortunately it is not true.
If that were true, it would be alarming and possibly grounds for involuntary commitment based on someone being trans.
Fortunately it is not true.
Sorry, English isn't my primary language. What I meant by suicide rates is indeed attempted suicide.
It would be really scary if all of those succeeded.
I wouldn't dismiss unsuccessful suicides. Someone who doesn't succeed or turn back before committing isn't cured or any happier and may very well attempt again or live under a black cloud of depression and stress.
As for your comment on involuntary commitment, it makes no sense. There is a well known "cure" for gender dysphoria and it is gender transition. "after treatment, 26 (2.4%) of the MTF subjects and 7 (1.4%) of the FTM subjects still reported depression"[1]. According to this study, only 2.4% still report depression after transition. There are more studies reporting similar results, find them yourself.
[1] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/827713
Edit: I've reread your post and your other post. I understand that your comment on involuntary commitment was meant if my mistake was true and the successful suicide rate was indeed 45%.
It would be really scary if all of those succeeded.
I wouldn't dismiss unsuccessful suicides. Someone who doesn't succeed or turn back before committing isn't cured or any happier and may very well attempt again or live under a black cloud of depression and stress.
As for your comment on involuntary commitment, it makes no sense. There is a well known "cure" for gender dysphoria and it is gender transition. "after treatment, 26 (2.4%) of the MTF subjects and 7 (1.4%) of the FTM subjects still reported depression"[1]. According to this study, only 2.4% still report depression after transition. There are more studies reporting similar results, find them yourself.
[1] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/827713
Edit: I've reread your post and your other post. I understand that your comment on involuntary commitment was meant if my mistake was true and the successful suicide rate was indeed 45%.
Being in a high risk group isn't grounds for involuntary commitment.
There is no group (including trans people) with such a "high risk" of suicide, outside of people who meet the criteria for involuntary commitment because they are at risk of suicide.
For one thing, that isn't true. People with certain mental illnesses and a history of suicide attempts have lifetime suicide rates in that range. More importantly, involuntarily committing someone for suicide risk requires evidence of suicidal behavior or thought.
>The FSF and Leah have mostly refrained from naming names when talking about who got fired
FWIW Leah never explicitly named the employee because they didn't want her to but Leah made some changes to the libreboot website as well as the accusations made on the mailing list that make it very very obvious who the fired employee was. The changes she made to the Libreboot website actually made Google list the fired employees full name as a related search for a very simple query about the drama. It's still up to this day and searching for the employee's name will also list a related search tying her back to this.
Luckily it doesn't directly confirm that she was the fired employee but still, if some potential employer is looking into her on Google it's way too easy to tie her back to this controversy that she never wanted to be a part of.
FWIW Leah never explicitly named the employee because they didn't want her to but Leah made some changes to the libreboot website as well as the accusations made on the mailing list that make it very very obvious who the fired employee was. The changes she made to the Libreboot website actually made Google list the fired employees full name as a related search for a very simple query about the drama. It's still up to this day and searching for the employee's name will also list a related search tying her back to this.
Luckily it doesn't directly confirm that she was the fired employee but still, if some potential employer is looking into her on Google it's way too easy to tie her back to this controversy that she never wanted to be a part of.
The full archive of Libreboot blog posts can be found via https://web.archive.org/web/*/libreboot.org
I don't know why free software projects are so dominated by personnel issues, I wish they weren't.
Having worked for corporate software projects and for free software projects, I can't say that free software projects are dominated by personnel issues any more than corporate software projects.
The main difference is things tend to happen out in the open for free software projects, and things happen behind closed doors within corporations. So it just seems like there is more drama, because issues are hashed out in public, things are not swept under the rug.
The main difference is things tend to happen out in the open for free software projects, and things happen behind closed doors within corporations. So it just seems like there is more drama, because issues are hashed out in public, things are not swept under the rug.
> The main difference is things tend to happen out in the open...
I don't think this is just due to a difference in the degree of openness in dealing with personal issues.
It's also the fact that project maintainers can use the project to advance their personal agenda, while a company cannot do that to the same extent.
For example, imagine if a company terminated a business partnership based only on the suspicion of sexual discrimination at the partner firm.
I think most people would find this premature or inappropriate, especially if the partner firm was not found guilty in a court, or if it did not admit any wrongdoing, and there isn't a history of such allegations at the firm.
I don't think this is just due to a difference in the degree of openness in dealing with personal issues.
It's also the fact that project maintainers can use the project to advance their personal agenda, while a company cannot do that to the same extent.
For example, imagine if a company terminated a business partnership based only on the suspicion of sexual discrimination at the partner firm.
I think most people would find this premature or inappropriate, especially if the partner firm was not found guilty in a court, or if it did not admit any wrongdoing, and there isn't a history of such allegations at the firm.
There is no reason for the personal stuff to be out in the open in open source.
I think it's a motivating factor to attract contributions.
I was catching up on C++11/14/17 after spending a lot of time in Rust recently and I realized that I see the C++ standards committee as this nameless faceless void, and the Rust team as these friendly people on GitHub and IRC. There's this college kid who thinks using "pre-pooping your pants" as a technical term is a good plan, this Brooklyn hipster who really likes communism, etc. Whether or not I endorse their "personal stuff", I have a sense that there's a community of real people and not just names on a community, and that makes Rust as a language attractive. If I want to contribute something to the language, there are people I can talk to, and there's a clear way for me, as I am, to do that. I have no idea how to propose something to C++ without working for a company that has a seat on the standards committee. Maybe there is a way, but I'm certainly not under the impression that there is a way.
Projects that are more able to attract contributions will be healthier, more technically productive, and more secure (via Linus' Law). It's meaningless to try to focus purely on the technical if you don't have the people to do the technical work.
I was catching up on C++11/14/17 after spending a lot of time in Rust recently and I realized that I see the C++ standards committee as this nameless faceless void, and the Rust team as these friendly people on GitHub and IRC. There's this college kid who thinks using "pre-pooping your pants" as a technical term is a good plan, this Brooklyn hipster who really likes communism, etc. Whether or not I endorse their "personal stuff", I have a sense that there's a community of real people and not just names on a community, and that makes Rust as a language attractive. If I want to contribute something to the language, there are people I can talk to, and there's a clear way for me, as I am, to do that. I have no idea how to propose something to C++ without working for a company that has a seat on the standards committee. Maybe there is a way, but I'm certainly not under the impression that there is a way.
Projects that are more able to attract contributions will be healthier, more technically productive, and more secure (via Linus' Law). It's meaningless to try to focus purely on the technical if you don't have the people to do the technical work.
I see C++ and Rust in the opposite way: Rust is developed by Mozilla for its needs and about as open as something from Apple, while the C++ committees include lots of respected experts, many of which popular and/or friendly.
If that were the case, much of the community-driven work going towards - for example - specific embedded targets wouldn't happen. What is the case is that one of the major users of Rust is Servo, which definitely runs into more problems at large scale then other projects.
Rust is primarily community-driven and that is a conscious choice by Mozilla. If it were primarily for Mozilla, we wouldn't run research into how production users use it.
Finally, Mozilla cannot be compared with Apple at all, for all that's bad about them, there's an extreme amount of stuff that happens very much in the open and the clear, with the possibility to influence it.
We have the discussion processes you want, but the language is 2 years old, it's certainly not comparable to C++ on that angle, yet.
Rust is primarily community-driven and that is a conscious choice by Mozilla. If it were primarily for Mozilla, we wouldn't run research into how production users use it.
Finally, Mozilla cannot be compared with Apple at all, for all that's bad about them, there's an extreme amount of stuff that happens very much in the open and the clear, with the possibility to influence it.
We have the discussion processes you want, but the language is 2 years old, it's certainly not comparable to C++ on that angle, yet.
The C++ standards committee is pretty active on their mailing list[1], which is also how you'd submit a proposal.
[1] https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/m/?fromgroups#!...
[1] https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/m/?fromgroups#!...
Maybe, maybe not, but the point is there is a much lower barrier for people to do so whether or not there is any reason for it when it doesn't affect their livelihood.
There is also a much lower barrier for someone else to take it public for the same reason.
There is also a much lower barrier for someone else to take it public for the same reason.
If personal issues create problems in a corporate project, people get fired. This alone creates a chilling effect - people put up with a lot of crap before they make the problems public, see Uber or any other story about a toxic workplace.
The chilling effect seems only true for toxic environments. Yet most workplaces are not toxic in the way that you might imagine Uber to be. There are many tech companies (large and small) that are pro-active about creating a good environment. Also, the workplace makes you think twice about bad behavior, because it has real consequences like losing your job, unlike on the internet. See also cookiecaper's comment.
Agreed. As an open sourcer, a night at the bar and smartphone in hand is all it takes to get the ball rolling when the inevitable issues start appearing in your inbox. You take your oss projects personal, for better or worse. Good take on the issue, when (you feel) the whole company is fucked, its hard to stand up and declare an issue local to you.
> If personal issues create problems in a corporate project, people get fired.
Or promoted, or anything inbetween. Some corporate projects live for years because a certain manager can't be seen to have wasted so much money on a failed one. Personal/political issues are everywhere in the corporate world.
Or promoted, or anything inbetween. Some corporate projects live for years because a certain manager can't be seen to have wasted so much money on a failed one. Personal/political issues are everywhere in the corporate world.
I disagree. I think that free software has more of these issues because it's done on a volunteer basis.
The commitment and interdependence of the employment relationship smooths over most disagreements at work. People may not like it, but they stay aboard because, well, what are they going to do, leave? And what's the company going to do, fire them?
No such arrangement exists in voluntary efforts. People will work together fine as long as they all agree on most things. Once a real conflict emerges, without the underlying commitment and interdependence, people just decide it's not worth the frustration and walk away.
The commitment and interdependence of the employment relationship smooths over most disagreements at work. People may not like it, but they stay aboard because, well, what are they going to do, leave? And what's the company going to do, fire them?
No such arrangement exists in voluntary efforts. People will work together fine as long as they all agree on most things. Once a real conflict emerges, without the underlying commitment and interdependence, people just decide it's not worth the frustration and walk away.
> in voluntary efforts ... people just decide it's not worth the frustration and walk away
You make it sounds like it's a bad thing. Being able to focus your energies on healthy communities in a feature.
> employment [...] smooths over most disagreements at work
No. It just hides them. Backstabbing is popular, so it is disenchantment and cynicism. People biases turn into harsh peer performance feedback, refusal to hire and poor cooperation. Sociopaths get promoted.
You make it sounds like it's a bad thing. Being able to focus your energies on healthy communities in a feature.
> employment [...] smooths over most disagreements at work
No. It just hides them. Backstabbing is popular, so it is disenchantment and cynicism. People biases turn into harsh peer performance feedback, refusal to hire and poor cooperation. Sociopaths get promoted.
> You make it sounds like it's a bad thing. Being able to focus your energies on healthy communities in a feature.
No, it's definitely a bug.
Walking away from personal conflicts weakens projects and communities through fragmentation. It feeds the selfish desire for safety and isolation at the expense of developing the more healthy ability to put aside personal differences in pursuit of a greater goal.
As a result, these so-called "healthy communities" will eventually end up more fragile and more fragmented than their original counterparts, especially since personal conflicts are inevitable in any project. What a fine way to derail a movement.
> No. It just hides them...
This is only true for toxic workplaces, but most workplaces are not toxic. There are many tech companies (large and small) that are pro-active about creating a good environment.
No, it's definitely a bug.
Walking away from personal conflicts weakens projects and communities through fragmentation. It feeds the selfish desire for safety and isolation at the expense of developing the more healthy ability to put aside personal differences in pursuit of a greater goal.
As a result, these so-called "healthy communities" will eventually end up more fragile and more fragmented than their original counterparts, especially since personal conflicts are inevitable in any project. What a fine way to derail a movement.
> No. It just hides them...
This is only true for toxic workplaces, but most workplaces are not toxic. There are many tech companies (large and small) that are pro-active about creating a good environment.
[deleted]
Yes, there's something about the workplace that creates the sort of bonds that make you think twice before doing or saying something stupid.
[deleted]
Because they are often started by a small group (usually just one) of people who are passionate about the subject enough to work on it in their spare time, so they have stronger personal involvement. That provides the drive, but also the side-effect of personal drama when things go wrong.
Larger institutions usually setup protections against just that kind of drama, but often with the side-effect of reducing motivation.
Larger institutions usually setup protections against just that kind of drama, but often with the side-effect of reducing motivation.
In my experience in the software industry, I've seen enough feuds, ego-related fighting, insults, people having mental breakdowns and lashing angrily at everyone around them (this happened more than once, at different workplaces!), and rude team members demeaning others over their alleged lack of technical skills, that I think these things happen everywhere, regardless of whether the project is free or proprietary. It's just that it's easier to see in free software projects.
In my experience, it's the same with any volunteer project that doesn't have a large amount of contributors and low barrier of entry for active contribution.
At least with free software, when a project falls apart, the source code is out there, so someone else can pick it up and resurrect the project.
My theory is that the traditional idea of "ownership" does not translates to free software. In fact its one of the reason why I am hesitant to be involved with any type of open source "community". In a traditional corporation, you own shares or worse stock options but their are clear legal rights. In Open Source on the other hand you can start a very popular software spend years of your life toiling away and nurturing it, and then suddenly a bunch of activists make an issue out of a donation you made several years ago. Instantly you find yourself kicked out of the organization. Now if it were a company, sure you might still get kicked out the company but your shares will remain intact.
These days with random unverifiable accusations, extreme political correctness, & activists going through history to dig up mud, open source community has become hazardous to ones career.
These days with random unverifiable accusations, extreme political correctness, & activists going through history to dig up mud, open source community has become hazardous to ones career.
All things considered this sort of drama doesn't happen all that often in free software projects.
There was the Jacob Appelbaum drama not so long ago, which was quite ugly and really seemed to drag out.
That's still ongoing.
I won't bring up any specifics here because it's a difficult topic to discuss without running afoul of the HN rules.
I won't bring up any specifics here because it's a difficult topic to discuss without running afoul of the HN rules.
Groups of people in general are dominated by personnel issues, unless you're a small group of people with very similar backgrounds. Free software projects are communities first and foremost, with the software as an output of that community.
much free software is done on spare time, so people are most often personally involved in their "babies". Creating an institution allows one to take some step back, but so may the motivation... I wonder things are really this way...
I think a combination of that, and that with closed projects the drama like this doesn't tend to end up in public purview, sometimes not even among the workers in a company if HR does a good job of not letting it turn into a big issue. That's one kind of situation that companies tend to have an advantage in dealing with since they can more easily fire/remove a person causing problems from a project. That's a lot harder with a publicly developed open source project.
> end up in public purview, sometimes not even among the workers in a company
I agree. The exact same thing happens on closed corporate projects, it just happens behind closed doors. You're right - sometimes a co-founder gets pushed out for political reasons, and even within the company most people don't know what the whole story is.
I agree. The exact same thing happens on closed corporate projects, it just happens behind closed doors. You're right - sometimes a co-founder gets pushed out for political reasons, and even within the company most people don't know what the whole story is.
Also, personal drama can have a negative effect on the rest of the team, and in a business environment, good HR would try to minimize that effect. But there is no such equivalent in the volunteer world.
[deleted]
There's no boss to tell them to shut up and get back to work.
I hate to be cynical but I've been trained to pass politico-speak and Leahs apology is only that she attacked individuals. Her apology is devoid of stating that she believes the FSF did the right thing or absolve them of any wrong-doing regarding termination of that employee regardless of their gender.
To a very cynical person (which I am being for the sake of this comment) it sounds like "I won, I did the damage I wanted; but now my project is hurting and this is damage control."
EDIT: Someone is bitter.
To a very cynical person (which I am being for the sake of this comment) it sounds like "I won, I did the damage I wanted; but now my project is hurting and this is damage control."
EDIT: Someone is bitter.
I thought it was clear that Leah still finds fault with the FSF (and thus has no interest in Libreboot rejoining), but has come to the conclusion that she went down the wrong path in responding to the situation. I see that as a reasonable and internally consistent position.
This seems like a pretty unreasonable conclusion to draw. We don't know what happened with the FSF, and I think that Leah is entitled to her own view. Her resulting behavior was what caused damage, and she's apologized for that.
But she's not going back on her forcibly removing the project from the FSF.
It's platitudes without that. She "punished" them successfully.
It's platitudes without that. She "punished" them successfully.
Ya you're not the only one, I see a person coerced into making a statement.
But I'm glad the project is still out of the FSF.
But I'm glad the project is still out of the FSF.
Your cynical view may be correct; but that does not mean that she should absolve the FSF of wrong doing.
No one was upset that she thought the FSF discriminated against her friend; the problem was the way she dealt with the issue, and that is what she was apologizing for.
No one was upset that she thought the FSF discriminated against her friend; the problem was the way she dealt with the issue, and that is what she was apologizing for.
I think they are naive to leave Leah in any kind of position within this project. I'm not saying she is a government operative, but activist projects like this that seek to end the potential for electronic eavesdropping via the IME are going to be at least spied upon, if not disrupted. And stirring up a bunch of crazy drama is a known controlled opposition technique. Like I said, I am not accusing Leah of being such, and I have no knowledge to make such an assessment of her. I just know that in my line of activism, someone acts a fool like that, they're out. Period.
That sounds like a double-edged sword, since by those rules an Evil Attacker Organization™ could now get rid of key people by stirring up enough drama around them.
> That sounds like a double-edged sword, since by those rules an Evil Attacker Organization™ could now get rid of key people by stirring up enough drama around them [emphasis mine].
I don't think it is. It's one thing to have drama around you, but it's quite another to be the source or instigator of it. Leah Rowe is clearly the latter.
I don't think it is. It's one thing to have drama around you, but it's quite another to be the source or instigator of it. Leah Rowe is clearly the latter.
Another aspect of this is who wants to head up a project like Libreboot? Its a large time sink for minimal returns, as x86-64 is very locked down and likely unusable for future Libreboot targets, with ARM chips bypassing Coreboot (which Libreboot is a build environment for) entirely, instead using uboot.
Was, not is. I believe that's an important distinction.
> Was, not is. I believe that's an important distinction.
It is, but it's yet to be seen if this kind of dramatic behavior is behind the project's leader. It was all very dramatic and still very fresh. An apology is only the first step towards making it past-tense.
It is, but it's yet to be seen if this kind of dramatic behavior is behind the project's leader. It was all very dramatic and still very fresh. An apology is only the first step towards making it past-tense.
There is also the reality that recovery from addiction doesn't always take on the first try.
A wise man once told me: "no politics at work". As time goes on, the value of that advice becomes more and more certain.
There's no reason that libreboot needs to be a political project. There are enough reasons to want our firmware to be free. We rely on our machines for our work, for our art, for our lives.
There's no reason that libreboot needs to be a political project. There are enough reasons to want our firmware to be free. We rely on our machines for our work, for our art, for our lives.
There are enough reasons to want our firmware to be free. We rely on our machines for our work, for our art, for our lives.
That's a political position as well.
You can't avoid taking political positions in a public social environment, all you're doing is silently accepting the existing position.
That's a political position as well.
You can't avoid taking political positions in a public social environment, all you're doing is silently accepting the existing position.
This is not a political issue unless you want to make it so. It is a purely economic issue brought about by commercial interest. The fact that merchants and financiers depend on politicians to pass the laws which make it criminal to reverse engineer or share/publicise knowledge derived from reverse engineering does not make it a political issue.
You only have to Google 'site:news.ycombinator.com john deere' to see that it is an economic issue. Replacing your $1000 laptop may not be much of an economic issue for you, but your replacing or paying maintenance for your $500,000 combine harvester most certainly is.
You only have to Google 'site:news.ycombinator.com john deere' to see that it is an economic issue. Replacing your $1000 laptop may not be much of an economic issue for you, but your replacing or paying maintenance for your $500,000 combine harvester most certainly is.
Economics is politics, and that's actually one of the more clear examples.
But even if the farmers' actions were somehow non-political, as far as I know the main contributors of Libreboot are not farmers, nor is the Peers Community to which the project belong a trade association of farmers. It's clearly a project motivated by a political idea.
But even if the farmers' actions were somehow non-political, as far as I know the main contributors of Libreboot are not farmers, nor is the Peers Community to which the project belong a trade association of farmers. It's clearly a project motivated by a political idea.
Or declaring that this is not the time and space for those discussions.
Doing nothing is still a choice.
You don't need discussions; distributing code is a political action by itself. The project is inherently political. Limiting discussions is just a power play.
Claiming that everything is political is a political statement. Further, there's nothing wrong with choosing the accepted existing position.
Any news on that X220 support mentioned? I have, and use, an X220 for all of my personal computing. How would one flash this and what would improve/break?
I've heard things about different mini PCIe cards working after flashing to different types of BIOSs.
I've heard things about different mini PCIe cards working after flashing to different types of BIOSs.
I don't know about the X220, but I can tell you about my experiences with setting up an X200 I bought off ebay. Its not quite trivial..
You need to get access to the SPI flash chip on the mother board. They sell some fancy little clips to attach wires, but I just had one of the hardware guys at work tac some wires directly to the chip. Then I used a raspberry pi to flash the image across using their tools. Maybe I had a dodgy connection, but it took several tries of flashing to get it to work correctly.
Once installed it isn't much of a bios. It is mostly just GRUB, you lose all the existing bios settings completely. It lets you boot from different images and thats about it. It does work well once it's set up though.
Here's a few low quality photos of the procedure. http://imgur.com/a/zAQRl
You need to get access to the SPI flash chip on the mother board. They sell some fancy little clips to attach wires, but I just had one of the hardware guys at work tac some wires directly to the chip. Then I used a raspberry pi to flash the image across using their tools. Maybe I had a dodgy connection, but it took several tries of flashing to get it to work correctly.
Once installed it isn't much of a bios. It is mostly just GRUB, you lose all the existing bios settings completely. It lets you boot from different images and thats about it. It does work well once it's set up though.
Here's a few low quality photos of the procedure. http://imgur.com/a/zAQRl
You'd probably flash it using flashrom, just like non-blobless (blobfull?) coreboot.
BTW, a really interesting coreboot distribution is https://github.com/osresearch/heads (focused on boot security)
BTW, a really interesting coreboot distribution is https://github.com/osresearch/heads (focused on boot security)
Yeah, I have an X230T (X230, tablet version.) How likely is it that any X220 supported stuff would work on the X230?
Funily enough I have an X230T too and I'd like to switch over to that. I cant get my battery life on my X230T to match my X220 at all. Any tips for this?
I can't wait to have a note-taking pen tablet laptop thing, battery life is just a big factor for me. I'm a college student and need to be able to run my laptop from 8AM to 12PM. X220 works great for that. X230T is not there yet for me.
I can't wait to have a note-taking pen tablet laptop thing, battery life is just a big factor for me. I'm a college student and need to be able to run my laptop from 8AM to 12PM. X220 works great for that. X230T is not there yet for me.
I am very proud of all sides that are involved. The letter was very on point when stating "The world of free software is shrinking and under attack".
All of us doing OSS must absolutely forgot any personal differences and work towards the cause -- and never forget the cause. There are strongly opinionated people, there are bigots, there are paid trolls, there are sexists and racists -- like in all human groups. In the end though, we still must come together.
All of us doing OSS must absolutely forgot any personal differences and work towards the cause -- and never forget the cause. There are strongly opinionated people, there are bigots, there are paid trolls, there are sexists and racists -- like in all human groups. In the end though, we still must come together.
> With all of this in mind, were the allegations against the Free Software Foundation true? Perhaps. Perhaps not. At this point, it doesn’t matter.
It may matter very much to the person who was fired.
It may matter very much to the person who was fired.
What is the relevance of libreboot anymore? Why not just focus instead on librecore?
[deleted]
Does anyone in the free software community really care about all this? Did this really need a press release?
It looks like this got hit with the HN effect. Does anybody have a mirror?
So turns out they need GNU after all?
can I get TLDR on all the drama ?
- FSF fires underperforming and problematic employee who happen to be transgender
- Libreboot exists FSF and publicly denounces it believing that firing was based because of the transgender a la discrimination
- Community gets divided, Libreboot doesn't get as much help/code/growth as before
- Libeboot realised it made a huge mistake (but doesn't admit it), wants things the way they were
- Libreboot exists FSF and publicly denounces it believing that firing was based because of the transgender a la discrimination
- Community gets divided, Libreboot doesn't get as much help/code/growth as before
- Libeboot realised it made a huge mistake (but doesn't admit it), wants things the way they were
Without going into specifics that would surely prove to be incendiary to some, this whole thing makes me feel like some portion of the world has completely lost it. If you feel differently than me or hostile towards me for saying so, that is your right, but I wanted to have at least one comment on here for posterity for anyone else who feels the way I do so that they do not feel alone.
This is very telling to me that I get down voted for having a differing worldview opinion. Social justice for all unless they disagree with you, eh.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14054698 and marked it off-topic, since the guidelines ask us to please not complain about downvotes.
I can't speak to why others downvoted you. However, your comment says nothing. I have no idea what you think about this; but I do know that your comment adds nothing to the conversation.
He is making clever implications by omission. Break it down, by the words he uses... I won't spell it out, but the OP finds some facts in the story unusual to the point of 1 in 10000 coincidences happening with 1 in 10 frequency in the context. It is a valid observation, even if it does imply a different worldview.
gizmo686 - For you this may be true. I don't think you can speak for everyone that comes to this thread though. I've said as much as I feel comfortable and safe to say given how hostile the internet and 'discussion' about certain subjects have become in general.
You attributed the downvotes to having a different opinion, but in this very comment you admit to being intentionally vague.
Maybe you should instead attribute the downvoting to the very good reason you gave us.
Maybe you should instead attribute the downvoting to the very good reason you gave us.
Yeah, well I ended up with more upvotes than downvotes in the end. So apparently your 'very good reason' was not widely shared. Thanks for trolling anyway. Can alway count on the internet to provide plenty of them.
Ah, glad your cognitive biases turned out to be right in the end!
> gizmo686 - For you this may be true. I don't think you can speak for everyone that comes to this thread though.
They don't. Read their reply:
> I can't speak to why others downvoted you.
They then go on to explain why they would down vote you and what could have driven others to do the same.
They don't. Read their reply:
> I can't speak to why others downvoted you.
They then go on to explain why they would down vote you and what could have driven others to do the same.
red023(1)
redsummer(1)
Finally, on a personal note, she was at the time struggling with gender dysphoria and substance abuse. Since then, she has been managing these issues. She agrees that her behaviour was rash and is determined to find a unifying solution.
Is it really necessary to air this in public? Did you get her permission?
Is it really necessary to air this in public? Did you get her permission?
Leah, the woman that statement references, posted her own personal message and apology below, so I think it's fair to assume she was consulted.
Though the whole situation has been an unfortunate mess, it takes real bravery to publically admit fault and share those sorts of struggles.
Though the whole situation has been an unfortunate mess, it takes real bravery to publically admit fault and share those sorts of struggles.
To be honest the "substance abuse" parts explains alot more about her behavior than the gender dysphoria. During the incident period there were a number of level-headed supporters of the project trying to dial it back, and it's as though she would double down at every opportunity.
> she would double down at every opportunity.
People with this kind of personal politics ALWAYS double down.
People with this kind of personal politics ALWAYS double down.
[deleted]
I hope things really are quieting down, and I'm really excited over the possibility of disabling ME. Being unable to get rid of hardware backdoors is essentially why I haven't bought a new laptop in ten years. Remarkably, my ten-year old Inspiron 1420 dellbuntu still works great, and it's delightful to be able to still buy parts for it, but I'm starting to feel the desire for newer hardware.