Slashdot Mirror


Intel — Only "Open" For Business

Michael Knudsen writes, "Intel still refuses to work with open source projects such that they can provide their users with proper support for Intel's hardware products. As he has done before, Theo de Raadt once again asks users to take action by contacting Intel, telling them what they think of their current policy of not releasing hardware documentation and granting open source projects the right to distribute hardware firmware with their products. Failing to do so only harms users in the way that they risk having unsupported or malfunctioning hardware in their operating system of choice." Read more below.

It's really important that people understand that Intel is only trying to cooperate just enough to make people believe that they're open and doing the right thing. Don't fool yourselves: They are not.

What we need all users of open source software to do is contact Intel and let them know what you think of their current behaviour. If you run a big department and chose another vendor's products over Intel's because it doesn't work in your operating system, let them know, along with how many units they could have sold you. If you are an end user who has had problems when using Intel hardware because of poor support, let them know.

Let them know that their current lack of support will only harm them in the long run because you will be avoiding their products. Let them know that you want your hardware to work out of the box when you have installed your operating system of choice, and how Intel is preventing this with their lack of support.

Intel is not doing you a favor by requiring you to go to a website and download firmware for your hardware. You paid for the hardware, and Intel is thanking you by making it difficult for you to use it. Let Intel know what you think of this.

9 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. damned if you do... by macadamia_harold · · Score: 4, Funny

    Failing to do so only harms users in the way that they risk having unsupported or malfunctioning hardware in their operating system of choice.

    So we get unsupported or malfunctioning hardware with our operating system of choice, or we get supported and functioning hardware with a malfunctioning operating system. cool.

  2. Yes, but: by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I couldn't agree more with the goal here, but the approach seems a bit unproductive. I refer to the parts like this:

    James is a big fat liar

    (It's in TFA, believe it or not.)

    This is no way to get the other side to play nicely with you.

    1. Re:Yes, but: by ari_j · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's ether that or Theo is a refugee from some parallel universe Bizzaro World, where "up yours, scumbags!" is a polite way to open a formal dialogue and "good morning, gentlemen" is a killing insult. One of the two, certainly.
      Well, he is Canadian.
  3. Be professional! by HRbnjR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I tried to keep it short and to the point, my email to them read:

    Subject: Linux Wireless Firmware Distribution

    I was very happy to hear that Intel is working with the community to
    ensure that G965 graphics will work out of the box under Linux.

    I am very sad to hear that Intel isn't doing the same for their wireless
    products WRT freely distributable firmware.

    I am a developer in the Computing Services department at a 30 thousand
    plus student university. Community enabled Linux support is a huge
    factor in the purchasing decisions of our department.

    1. Re:Be professional! by arivanov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a reason for that.

      2D (and 3D) algorithms are commodity, they are well known (most are published 20+ years ago) and large part of the card is designed towards a rather old, but still valid common standard (VESA). In addition to that there is no regulatory regime to deal with it. Having "super duper secrets" in a low-to-mid sector video parts makes no sense whatsoever.

      Wireless chipsets operate with a mix of commodity and private algorithms, there is no common spec regarding the way the platform sees them and there standards specify only the external side and nothing on the OS side. In addition to that there is list of Frequency Nazies to deal in every country. All of them insist that any power, frequency and tuning parameters are private and inaccessible to Joe Average Luser. In a modern chipset these are done in firmware and having them secret and limited makes all the sense in the world to a manufacturer. They have to distribute it under strict conditions which limit its possible uses and forbid tampering. If they do not they will lose their license. This forces the license terms on Intel, Atheros, etc. They have no choice on the matter and writing billions of letters to them will be pointless. There will be no change of mind and the firmware will always be under a license that is OSS incompatible. The right addressee for the mail is FCC (and its analogues). It is their business to enforce frequency bands and they are taking the easy way out by passing this responsibility to the manufacturers. If we really want wireless OSS firmware (I doubt that) the enforcement method of the current FCC regime must change and FCC must allow the manufacturers to release such firmware.

      Until then, no point to bother and Theo should vent some steam elsewhere. Plenty of new crypto processors around without support in OpenBSD (or elsewhere).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  4. Intel open enough for me by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 5, Informative

    It should be noted that Intel manufactures the only technologically-current graphics processor which can claim to have open source drivers, and then Intel series of gigabit ethernet NICs is by far the best choice for use with Linux. Intel's wireless chips, the subject of the article, are not completely open but are rather more open than some of the competition.

  5. Okay, I'll Try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Intel,

    I am humble Nigerian prince with a great wealth of BSD users in a locked-out community...

    Aw, shucks.

  6. Re:Why Firmware? by portmapper · · Score: 5, Informative

    OpenBSD want to distribute firmware along with the OS under an acceptable license. They are not asking for the source
    code of the firmware. Intel are instractible here, so owners of Intel wireless devices needs to personally accept a license
    before downloading the firmware. As an example: http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php

    As for open source drivers: OpenBSD wants hardware documentation, not a Linux driver, so that they can write their own drivers.
    Intel claims that they are open source friendly and gives out documentation, but the last is clearly a lie since OpenBSD had to reverse
    engineer several Intel wireless chipsets.

    Giving the appearance of beeing friendly to open source, while not beeing so, is the latest fad in business. Intel is an example
    of this fad.

  7. Better article on the story. by Karellen · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?