proprietary firmware

enaut enaut.w at
Fri Feb 8 21:51:03 CET 2008

Christopher Earl schrieb:
> I think he had the right intentions about this idea, however it would require vast CPU resources or a coprocessor dedicated to firware/driver layer managment. This is unlikley to happen, However trying to unlock the virtual lips of companies would be a huge step forward. Not to play devils advocate but if the firmware was loaded into RAM at boot a simple RAM dump would allow reverse engineering of the data, and thus the device,So im OK with that.
>>>> Andy Powell <andy at> 02/08/08 10:08 AM >>>
> On Friday 08 February 2008 08:46, Lally Singh wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 2008 8:32 PM, Wolfgang Spraul <wolfgang at> wrote:
>>> He suggested we treat any chipset with proprietary firmware as a black-
>>> box, a circuit. He suggested we ignore the firmware inside. If the
>>> firmware is buggy and the vendor needs the ability to update the
>>> firmware, we instead ask the vendor to reduce the firmware to the bare
>>> minimum, so that it can be very simple and bug free, and move the rest
>>> of the logic into the GPL'ed driver running on the main CPU. This way
>>> we completely avoid the issue of distributing proprietary firmware
>>> updates and binary firmware updaters with restrictive licensing that
>>> load only cryptographically signed firmware.
>> While I see the benefits here, it seems that we're sacrificing CPU
>> time, power usage, and lowered utilization of other devices on the
>> phone to get over a license issue -- a technical resolution to a legal
>> problem.
> I have to agree here.  This is a low powered (CPU) device that contains chips 
> designed to perform specific tasks. Why on earth would anyone think that 
> making the cpu handle those tasks be a good idea?  
> Apple can manage to allow their users to update the baseband on the iPhone so 
> why can't FIC on the neo?
> Seriously, I want a phone that works properly more than I want one that dies 
> during a call because the cpu is maxed out doing stuff that the chips in the 
> same device should be doing..
> Rome wasn't built in a day and you're not going to change manufacturers 
> overnight either. In the meantime we have to be flexible. Mr Stallman appears 
> to live in a land where every device has infinite resources - some would say 
> it's called 'LaLa'
> Andy
I like the idea of having total control over my electronic devices - 
especially if they are able to collect everything about my life like a 
mobile phone. Thats why I'm currently living without any mobil.
If I am able to look into what runs on my device, I can trust that 
stuff. so I'm one of those guys saying doing everything open source is 
way better than gaining a little cpu-speed. and by the way I don't think 
that the cpu-speed is too limited on that device. usually cpus don't 
have to do anything. and a driver doesnt need too much. This smal gap 
could be closed esysly by optimizing things for the hardware.

regards enaut
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the community mailing list