Slashdot Mirror


Ubuntu Phone Isn't Important Enough To Demand an Open Source Baseband

colinneagle (2544914) writes "Canonical is producing a version of the Ubuntu Linux distribution specifically for smartphones, but Richard Tynan, writing for PrivacyInternational.org, recently pointed out that the baseband in Ubuntu-powered phones will remain proprietary. ... Some have criticized Canonical for missing an opportunity to push for a fully Open Source smartphone, but in order to fix this problem (and open up the code for this super-critical bit of software), we need companies that have a large amount of clout, in the smartphone market, to make it a priority. Canonical (with Ubuntu) just doesn't have that clout yet. They're just now dipping their toes into the smartphone waters. But you know who does have that clout? Google.

Google has made a point of touting Open Source (at least sometimes), and they are the undisputed king of the smartphone operating system world. And yet I hear no big moves by Google to encourage phone manufacturers to utilize Open Source baseband firmware, such as OsmocomBB. So has Canonical missed an opportunity? No. Not yet. If (some may say 'when') Ubuntu gains a critical amount of market share in the phone world, that will be their chance to pressure manufacturers to produce a truly Open Source phone. Until then, Canonical needs to continue to work within the world we have today."

137 comments

  1. They're not important even on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If (some may say 'when') Ubuntu gains a critical amount of market share in the phone world, that will be their chance to pressure manufacturers to produce a truly Open Source phone.

    Such naivety. Ubuntu never even gained a significant amount of market share in the regular desktop/laptop world. Google, which supposedly uses its own spin of Ubuntu internally, recently released Google Now for Windows and Mac but didn't bother with Linux. The Google Drive client has been out for Windows and Mac for ages and yet a client for Linux is "still in development".

    The only people who think it's a case of 'when' Ubuntu gains a critical amount of market share in the phone world are fanboys and kids who are still too idealistic and don't want to face the mountain of evidence which suggests Canonical don't know how to make something make money. They still haven't even turned a profit in close to 10 years for fucks sake! I'm sorry if this sounds like trolling but I'm sick and tired of Linux fans having their heads in the clouds and not being down to earth like I was expecting them to be.

    1. Re:They're not important even on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canonical don't know how to make something make money

      Who would have thought that giving away software for free and opening up all your software wouldn't be a big money maker?!? That's unpossible!!!

    2. Re:They're not important even on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It can work when you have corporate clients with big support contracts who are also funding development for the project to implement features they see as important. But who funds it when it is non-corporate end users? The people who balk at paying for software and expect it to come for free with their hardware anyway (iOS, Android, etc. even the cost of Windows is amortized to the point people don't notice it) are not going to pay for support contracts so projects like that are not going to be funded, except via ads, which people hate and use adblockers so the value of that model is being diluted anyway.

    3. Re: They're not important even on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most used OS at Google : OSX on Macs. They use 40,000 Macs. The rest is using Linux. (And not Chrome)

      (Windows : almost none)

    4. Re: They're not important even on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The billionaires behind RedHat apparently

    5. Re: They're not important even on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The question posed is perfectly reasonable, why does Google only do Open Source when it suits them? If the answer is that they leech off open source in their own self-interest then that is an acceptable answer.

      Sadly, this is an example of how Slashdot has been overrun by Microsoft to the extent that it's pretty much a marketing brochure now.

      Yeah totally, nobody *ever* hates on Microsoft (or Apple or Google or Oracle or Samsung or whoever) on slashdot ::rollseyes:: it's all a marketing brochure for Microsoft (or Apple or Google or Oracle or Samsung or whoever) because they totally eliminate all negative discussion about them. Odd that you can't stop reading it though and still have a desperate need to post to defend your company of choice from some perceived injustice on a site you don't like, very strange indeed, the sort of thing only somebody who was paid would do.

    6. Re:They're not important even on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It worked for Google.

    7. Re: They're not important even on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder they can't design an interface or site to save their lives.

    8. Re: They're not important even on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Windows, the uggliest and most convoluted GUI OS ever is the only one being able to create creativity?

      Wow. Trolling level 11.

    9. Re:They're not important even on the desktop by iiiears · · Score: 1

      I would like one but for now the price is beyond me. Fingers are crossed the price comes after several million have been sold..

      About Canonical's ability to make money...

      Linux belongs to us, All of us. It's unique, useful and available at no cost. poverty shouldn't be a barrier to learning right? Having source code makes us kings, without it serfs in a walled garden,

      Donate. (Slashdot can wait a few minutes.)

      --
      15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
    10. Re: They're not important even on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Microsoft PR's question, and they spruik it everywhere they can buy a forum.

      Rubbish! Microsoft is fully closed source, they have no PR interest in that question. Even if Google only uses open source when it suits them they still contribute more to open source where they use it than Microsoft ever has in its entire existence. The only people who pretend that question comes from Microsoft and use that as an excuse to avoid it are those who don't want people to know the answer. Google being open source or not doesn't benefit Microsoft at all because people don't buy Google products/services based on their open source nature anyway.

      The reality is that this whole article is PR trolling. Neither Canonical nor Google has any hope of changing the laws to make open source baseband firmware a viable option.

      Open source baseband software exists as does the means to use it and Google certainly has the power to start a movement to legislate it or at least support it for countries in which those laws are not as strict or do not exist at all.

      The only reason this story exists on Slashdot's front page is to sling mud at two of Microsoft's competitors.

      That has no basis in fact whatsoever. You would rather try to bury the story under the guise that it is some big conspiracy than to allow a legitimate question to be answered. The fact is there is no "mud-slinging" going on here so I do not see why you portray it that way.

      Go ahead and pretend Google are all open source, that GMS, their closed and proprietary protocols and their restricted services are all a Microsoft plot if you want but as Microsoft fades further into irrelevance in this new computing age you just look ignorant and silly with your notion that anything Google does is ok just so long as it isnt as bad as Microsoft.

    11. Re:They're not important even on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having source code makes us kings, without it serfs in a walled garden

      Yeah look at all those "kings" with their OpenMoko handsets! It is a nice theory but in practice the fully open source devices are crappy, like really crappy compared to the proprietary ones. You can be king of a pile of shit but is that really what you want to be king of? I think I'd rather be a citizen of a golden city than a king of a pile of shit, the nice thing is that if that pile of shit turns into a pile of gold one day then I could just switch, I'm not in any way bound to the golden city and I can even switch cities as I please.

  2. Google is not open sources friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only thing google likes about open source is the cost, and the geek cred, everything else they hate, and will actively try to remove.

    1. Re:Google is not open sources friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let the fanboys keep thinking that they're some big champions of open source by buying Google. In the end Google will make MS and Apple look like saints. If the whole truth of their operations were known I'm sure that would be true today.

    2. Re: Google is not open sources friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligent people already know that. It's just that the deluded gSheeps are screaming bloody murder pretty loud.

    3. Re: Google is not open sources friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also like the fact that it's"not Microsoft"

    4. Re:Google is not open sources friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing could ever make Apple and company that I would ever do any business with whatsoever, but you're right about Microsoft. At current time, I do honestly think that Google is more evil.

    5. Re:Google is not open sources friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true high school student. You must be head of your class.

  3. Google? Not very likely by Inev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google, these days, is interested in making as much of the Android ecosystem closed source as possible in order to exert control over it and manufacturers. So I don't see them wanting to open source something important like the baseband firmware. Source: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...

    1. Re:Google? Not very likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting article - much better than OP. I wouldn't trust Samsung anymore than Google to keep their apps open, far from it. so a truly open source fork of AOSP would be great.

    2. Re:Google? Not very likely by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Uh, you know Google don't write or control the baseband firmware, right? It is provided by the manufacturer of the system-on-chip that includes the baseband processor. Qualcomm, Samsung, Alcatel, Huawei or whoever they are using.

      It's those guys keeping it closed source. They do it because they don't want to give their competitors free hints, they don't want their competitors examining their source code for patent infringements, they don't want black hats examining the code for vulnerabilities and they can't be bothered to tidy it up enough to be publicly presentable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Google? Not very likely by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Keep in mind that Qualcomm has almost total dominance of the LTE modem market and they want to keep it that way.

      Even massive pressure from Google won't work here... Maintaining their lead in baseband chipsets (which is heavily dependent on their modem firmware being as difficult to RE as possible) is EXTREMELY important to Qualcomm. Losing dominance of the LTE market will hurt their cash flow there, and also their ability to keep using it to sell complete SoCs. (It's only recently with Krait that Qualcomm's SoCs were able to stand on their own and obtain design wins without pairing to a Qualcomm modem. The old Scorpion cores in the Snapdragon S3 family kind of sucked.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  4. One Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Patents.

    Ain't never gonna happen.

    Dreames. Nothing but dreamers.

    1. Re:One Words by unixisc · · Score: 1

      True

      However, is there any reason a baseband has to be ARM based? Can't it be based on, say, OpenRISC? If it could, then they could very well have an open source baseband CPU, put Linux on it, and then build up from there? Yeah, patents will still be an issue, but one could design around that?

  5. Re:Ubuntu isn't important enough for anything by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mint probably cares about Ubuntu, since it's a fork. Or was that supposed to be funny?

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  6. They need to fix Touch first. by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How can an Ubuntu phone be taken serious when Touch is horribly buggy and hardly runs on anything. I tested it on my Nexus 7 and it was basically unusable it doesn't even have a working memory management. I would probable have better luck with Haiku. O well back to CM, at least it works and has a cool animation at startup. Which is all that matters if you want to look cooler and nerdier that the other guy reading his tablet on the toilet.

    1. Re:They need to fix Touch first. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      and the latest nightly is not much better.

      Ubuntu Phone is at LEAST 2 years out before it is even ready for beta testing.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:They need to fix Touch first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, it's a VM running in a VM. And it's beta. You're right, let's just scrap the entire idea because....Google. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

    3. Re:They need to fix Touch first. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Uh, it's a VM running in a VM. And it's beta.

      So what you're saying is that Ubuntu Phone isn't real enough to be a phone.

      You're right, let's just scrap the entire idea because....Google. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

      I would like to use Android on a PC, but I have the same reservations regarding Android-x86. They keep kicking out new releases, but they never actually finish one. So there's plenty of fail in the Android ecosystem, and everyone [who cares] knows it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Irrational open source fanboys by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What part of you thinks a company with half a clue is going to 'open up' their special magic so that companies like Huawei can rape them in the process?

    NO smartphone maker gives enough of a shit about Ubuntu for them to have ANY chance at ALL of opening the baseband.

    You guys live in a really silly fantasy world where people seem to hurt themselves to benefit you, that doesn't actually happen and you have provided absolutely no reason they should actually open the baseband. You're a statistically insignificant group of people demanding something silly that no one else on the planet gives a shit about because you think no one else's way is possibly acceptable, you're way or the high way ...

    Theres no compelling reason for any one to open their baseband.

    Demanding OSS firmware is fucking silly anyway, the chips aren't open, you can't actually see whats going on in them and you never will because again, theres NO REASON to compel them to do so.

    Your monitor/display ... not OSS. Your computer hardware ... not OSS pretty much the only OSS in your life is the tiny little bit you run on your desktop, which is itself in no way what so ever open ...

    You guys pick some random silly shit to rant about and miss far bigger issues. It really makes you look silly and unaware of what you're talking about when you rant on about OSS baseband on a proprietary chip.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being condescending and dismissive doesn't make your opinion valid. It hurts it. Just saying.

    2. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [...] theres NO REASON to compel them to do so.

      How about to make sure there isn't a backdoor in the baseband software?
      https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/replicant-developers-find-and-close-samsung-galaxy-backdoor

      The NSA's activities should have us rushing to audit and open as much as possible.
      "Trust us" isn't a viable business model anymore.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re: Irrational open source fanboys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The galaxy backdoor was not located in the baseband but in Samsung's Android additions.

    4. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huawei already rapes companies though, open or not. Doesn't help when US companies still keep using Chinese manufacturing and assembly plants to create tech despite the well knowing habit of the Chinese Governement having plans for said tech copied to use in their own businesses, such as Huawei.

      Also you seem to be under the impression that if a minority wants something, then they must be silly because they're a minority, and the majority must be right because the majority are never short-sighted or ignorant of potential issues.

    5. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by fermion · · Score: 1
      This has little to do with manufacturing cell phones. There are only three companies making money on cell phones, Apple, Samsung, and MS through royalty payments by most Android Manufacturers.

      It is more a matter of what is legal. User can't really be allowed to change how cell phones work at this level. Such things can cause interference.

      What Ubuntu can do, and what Google was supposed to do, is provide a way for users to modify and update their open source phones independent of their carrier. This should not be something that is prohibited, and where Google lost in their open source push. Apple bypassed the carriers by working with a desperate ATT and then using power built up over time to push the way into other more reluctant carriers.

      This should be what Ubuntu should do. Find a desperate carrier. Sell quality phones. You are right that the fanatics will cause problems. But the others will do worse.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by BitZtream · · Score: 0

      Even if you saw what you thought was the baseband, that doesn't mean you're seeing any potential back doors. Thats my point. All ranting and raving about getting at the source so you can make sure you don't have any back doors ... because they can't just hard code that right into the chip and never let you see it ...

      Ranting about some tiny little bit of the device not being open source is retarded with the other 80% is as locked down far tighter than any source code ever.

      You trust people constantly, and then pick random things to rant about. Lets go over a list of other things that aren't open and you can't peak at that you still use.

      BIOS
      Chipsets
      Processor cores
      Network card cores
      Graphics card cores
      Keyboard controllers
      Your cars ECU
      Your TVs software (assuming you have one)
      Your monitors internal software
      The software for any digital clocks you might have

      I could go on for days with all the shit in your world that is not open that you won't bother to worry about ... but god damn, you know that baseband is software, and god dman that should FOSS because ... because ... well, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me magically why baseband (and software in general) is something that must be open, but hardware, you'll use that shit all day long without thinking twice. So if I just embed my code into the processor itself, you won't bitch.

      Thats just silly.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      Sadly you are misinformed or poorly educated.
      The companies you mention make nothing off this software.

      The companies that do make money from this software prefer not to be in he public eye. It's more profitable.
      Qualcom for instance. There are others, but I don't feel like digging their names up.

      They hold the high ground, because Apple, Android, almost irrelevant Ubuntu and MS all need their chips and software for their chips.
      If one company controlled the smartphone market they could force something, as long as there is more than one it isn't going to happen. i.e. never

    8. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by exomondo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He may be condescending and dismissive but I do see his point, this same formula has been repeated for years (first in desktops) with almost no successful results because it is flawed. Open source rarely gets used by end users because it's open source, it gets used because it is a more compelling product for one reason or another. Saying "you should open this up" inevitably leads to the question of "why" and if you cannot answer that then obviously it won't be opened up.

    9. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by exomondo · · Score: 1

      How about to make sure there isn't a backdoor in the baseband software?

      Well if there is then they're hardly going to open it up and show you now are they? If you take that as admission that there is then the next step would be to begin developing your own solution instead of badgering them to give you theirs that you probably don't want anyway.

    10. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Any one of the biggies could make an open baseband chip. Both Samsung and Apple have chip designers, and Samsung even has foundries. None of them cares. Why would they? What do they possibly have to gain by going to all the trouble to either make their own baseband chip or force an existing manufacturer to do it?

    11. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by gravious · · Score: 2

      Irrational? No. Maybe you could argue for misguided. Or optimistic. Or deluded. But irrational? No, it's _entirely_ rational to desire this state of affairs.

      Regarding smartphone manufacturers having a clue. Way back in the day before Linux people made the same arguments about servers and desktops and laptops. Before Android people made the same argument about smartphones. Heck now there's even an open hardware server consortium. These processes always seem impossible right up until the point they become reality and then they were the most obvious thing in the world.

      Smartphone makers employ engineers and engineers give enough of a 'shit' about Ubuntu, ergo smartphone makers give enough of a 'shit' about Ubuntu.

      This 'silly fantasy world' you speak of. It's called mutual cooperation. It's called trust. It's called sharing the load. It's called socially responsible. It's called not being hostile to your users and customers. The only hurt I see is the current situation. A mirage of short-term gains for longer-term whatever the opposite of benefits is (what's the opposite of benefits again? aaargh, stupid brain).

      Statistically insignificant? 75% of smartphones run a more or less free and open-source OS. Oh, there's that word silly again. And shit. And fucking silly. And ... Oh dear I'm having a hard time digesting your argument (you do have an argument, don't you) what with all the childish insults you're dropping. Tell you what, when you grow up and want to have an adult conversation with us I'm all ears, until then any chance you could stay away from that keyboard of yours and not waste our time. You come across like you're aged 14 and so do the people who upvoted you.

      --

      Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
    12. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your mostly right about the smartphone makers thinking.

      But you are still wrong on a moral level. I happen to think the world would be a better place if more things were open. And that is why I keep fighting for it.
      Sometimes we win, sometimes not. It does not matter, but it is still right to argue for it.

      That is the bigger issue, I do not care about companies and raping, that is what companies do anyway. Go enjoy our iphone untill it stops being supported. Meanwhile, I happily run my own device, as open as possible. And slowly getting more and more open (including the chips).

      Oh, and I hope evolution will slowly phase out think patterns like yours.

      Edit: captcha: triumphs

    13. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Thats just silly.

      Oh it's all so hard there's so much to do we may as well give up and not try.

      Oh and while we're at it let's try to shit on the people who are doing something about it because that's much easier than doing anything else.

      --BitZstream

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Except that the "backdoor" you mention turned out to be far less serious than initially though and doesn't appear to have impacted sales in the slightest, so apparently "trust us" is still viable.

      I agree it would be nice to audit everything for backdoors and NSA/GCHQ hacks, but don't kid yourself that anyone other than a handful of geeks even knows what baseband software is and why it matters.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by peppepz · · Score: 2

      because they can't just hard code that right into the chip and never let you see it ...

      No, because we would see either the software interfacing with the hard-coded backdoor, or some undocumented hardware means of communication coming out from the chip, and we'd start asking questions.

      So if I just embed my code into the processor itself, you won't bitch.

      Thats just silly.

      Embedding code in (readonly or flash) ROMs is actually preferred from Stallman's point of view, because it allows the hardware to work out-of-the-box when using free software to control that hardware. Binary firmware is problematic for free software operating systems, not because free software enthusiasts have some maniac obsession about not running binaries that they haven't compiled themselves, but because the copyright holders of the firmware binary blobs often attach very restrictive licensing conditions to them, making them very hard or impossible to redistribute.

    16. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Most importantly, no one ever proved that shipped (released builds as opposed to leaks or test builds) basebands ever used those functions. In fact, no one even found a leaked/test baseband firmware image that ever used those functions.

      It wasn't really a "backdoor", it was Samsung being their typical careless selves and leaving debug code compiled in to a release build. That "backdoor" has nothing on exynos-abuse for example...

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    17. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Oh it's all so hard there's so much to do we may as well give up and not try.

      AFAICT his point is that this is starting at an obviously stupid place. Opening up the baseband software serves little purpose because the hardware is closed anyway and if you design new open hardware you're going to write new open baseband software for it anyway or use something like OsmocomBB. Why waste the effort when it serves no purpose?

    18. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA shill alert. Somebody needs to EMP your asses...

    19. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by exomondo · · Score: 1

      it's _entirely_ rational to desire this state of affairs.

      That state of affairs? Yes. The path to getting there by begging to open source the firmware for closed hardware? No. The effort should go into creating the open hardware upon which you will either develop firmware or use an existing software solution like OsmocomBB rather than trying to get companies to give up the source code element that runs on closed hardware.

    20. Re:Irrational open source fanboys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try reading NIST SP 800-90A. More specifically Dual_EC_DRBG RNG. Its the most open of open. Public Domain.

      And yet, for all who followed it, they likely infected themselves with the means to let others hack them.

      Only a sith lord speak in absolutes - you have some absolute that you call "morality" ...and therein lies the "fanboyness" that others will exploit.

      Before open source software, we had the pasture commons ...both will continue to exist only to the extent that participants have shared interests.

      Unfortunately, I think few participants in open source have shared interests these days.

  8. Open mouth, Insert foot. by westlake · · Score: 2

    Since Mint has solidly dethroned it, who cares about Ubuntu?

    Next time, don't link to a page that debunks your own argument.

    The DistroWatch Page Hit Ranking statistics are a light-hearted way of measuring the popularity of Linux distributions and other free operating systems among the visitors of this website. They correlate neither to usage nor to quality and should not be used to measure the market share of distributions. They simply show the number of times a distribution page on DistroWatch.com was accessed each day, nothing more.

    DistroWatch Page Hit Ranking

  9. What an open source baseband can be. by queazocotal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Open source basebands cannot, legally, in most parts of the world be up-datable by the user, which removes most of the interest.

    There are several good reasons for this.
    Radio is a shared resource. Cellphones only work as well as they do as the towers arrange it so that no cellphone is transmitting on top of another one.

    The modem hardware is quite capable in most cases of transmitting right over the top of other transmissions. The worst case would be a free app turning up that gave free data transfer between nearby phones. And did this by ignoring the towers, and going direct.
    This has the potential to knock off dozens of calls from the network per user, some of which may be emergency calls.

    FCC/... approvals are inherently with a given software version of the modem - most of the behaviour of the modem is set by software - and changing that software without approval will void the approval of the phone.

    In some countries, there is actual specific legislation.
    If your open-source baseband could change the IMEI, then once you have been informed that this has been done, you are actually committing an offence if you continue to sell the phone which enables the user to do this in the UK.

    1. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly government has a pretty serious interest in owning your baseband.

    2. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 1

      I was actually curious about this - when I used to play with radio scanners, you could (theoretically) get in lots of trouble if you opened them up and sniffed on frequencies that weren't approved. I would imagine very low level control of the radio within a phone could get you in tons of trouble if you were able to spoof things like the IMEI, but even if it was somehow burned into the silicon, you could still play silly buggers with a very controlled set of rules and standards.

      --
      Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
    3. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's going to happen anyway.

    4. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Open source basebands cannot, legally, in most parts of the world be up-datable by the user, which removes most of the interest.

      But they could use signature verification to [more or less] prevent people from updating it while still releasing the source code. As long as you could compile it (though not load it) you could verify that it was the software used on the device.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re: What an open source baseband can be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So should we all ban internet comments and forums because I could make a bomb threat or post child porn there? Come on. Just because something could be abused doesn't mean it should be banned

    6. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > As long as you could compile it (though not load it) you could verify that it was the software used on the device.

      Yep. This is one of the huge benefits that folks are asking for.

    7. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a lot of bullshit for one comment.

    8. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by VikingNation · · Score: 1

      There are good reasons why base band processors cannot be opened up for anyone to use. Opening up the base band would allow hackers to run wild disrupting operating of networks.

    9. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Hackers can workaround proprietary software. Did you hear about reverse engineering?

    10. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spectrum is a public resource. Your comment perfectly illustrates why we need segments of various classes of signal free and open to the public. No restrictions like on family-band where store and forward packet radio is illegal.

      I don't see what the huge concern is. Really, for less that $20 you can create a small tunable jammer. If people want to do the jamming they can already. The assumption that folks won't play by the rules is idiotic considering the existence of short-wave two-way radios. Who knows what innovation we could have if tinkerers were allowed to play. Perhaps a world wide distributed store and forward self organizing spread spectrum multi-power level mesh network with data deduplication (infohashes for resources) which inherently has low latency, free collocation, and anonymity built in because you get most of your data from your neighbors or their neighbors instead of re-sending from the source -- Essentially a terrestrial version of NASA's Space Internet (Delay Tolerant Network) is possible.

      We have the technology to create a network where you only pay for the device then become a node in a network: No monthly fees, bigger and more expensive node, faster your cross country connection. We have the technology to automatically frequency hop and reduce or increase power so that channels can be reused over short ranges. We have the technology for point to point line of sight beams. We hobbyists have organized complex information networks like Fidonet before, and were such system allowed, non profit groups could handle coordination and management of local line-of-sight networking. Folks that say it's impossible have never tried, and are likely ignorant of HAM radio operations. Cell phones are proof of the viability.

      Given the existence of legally purchasable capacitors, transistors and wires, the issue isn't that software defined radio could possibly stomp on other people's signals -- Hell, a fist or bat could potentially injure people, but we don't lop off hands and outlaw ball games. The issue is that software defined radio threatens to destroy the need for carriers altogether. That's a good thing for the consumers, and hence why it isn't happening: The FCC and equivalent bodies operate in the best interest of the corporations not the people.

    11. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by VikingNation · · Score: 2

      Yes. I have heard about reverse engineering on posts on the Internet. I also have read that many base band processors are implemented in ASICs (QUALCOMM) which are difficult to hack. The base band processors are done with ASICs because they are ultra-low power. A software based band processor will eat your battery very quickly.
      So there are reasons, besides hacking prevention, to guide one to make hardware based units.

    12. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      In the US, and you got caught, years in prison. pretty much the same in many countries. RF is legislated, heavily! Sniff where you're not allowed at your peril. That said, it's difficult to impossible to detect passive scanning. except for the idiot that opens his mouth ...

    13. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Maybe not, depending on the license.

      In fact, protecting the integrity of the software by using a digital signature is expressly the use case that GPLv3 is trying to forbid.

    14. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Thank you - this was almost exactly the comment I had in my head.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    15. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      What good is that to them? Why do they have to prove anything to you? I'm not saying you're wrong or that your request is unreasonable but frankly I don't see any reason they would go to any effort to comply with your request.

    16. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why they wouldn't use such a license.

    17. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Here in australia your not supposed to listen in to police comms, but journalists, tow truck drivers and whoever else have been doing so for decades with no penalty.

      That said I wouldn't be surprise if its encrypted (or whatever they do) these days.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    18. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by nukem996 · · Score: 1

      This seems like something you could fix by hard coding the supported freqencies in silicon.

    19. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Police Comms are encrypted in W.A, and there are penalties if you do manage to intercept, decode & use the information. News gathering organisations, towies and the like, have a media office that will inform them of events they think you should know about, dependent on your identity, reputation and record of prior responsible use of that information.

    20. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      Calling them ASICs is both correct, and misleading.

      The modem parts contain both processors running a fairly complex program (typically several meg), to do both the management of the high-level protocol, and the low-level data framing.
      Then there are special units to write and read from the radio hardware at the precisely correct time and rate.
      In addition, digital filters and low-level modulators and demodulators.

      Doing a cell modem with pure SDR - with just analog to digital converters and then doing it all in software - will be extremely expensive, both in terms of power use and purchase cost.
      The performance required of the general purpose processors goes way up.

    21. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      Basebands have not - with rare exceptions - been hacked.
      They typically run signed firmware, with no documentation of the hardware platform, which considerably raises the bar.
      Can they be hacked - certainly it's likely some can.
      But, it's a very different matter legally between 'some nasty people cracked my phone' - and 'I made it freely accessible'.

      The prospect of peer-peer file transport apps that have a side-effect of knocking emergency calls offline is real.

      Radio is a shared resource.
      A stronger or closer transmitter on a frequency will always interfere with a further one - there is little that can be done to avoid this - and what can be done has serious costs in terms of mobile phones.

    22. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Spectrum is a public resource."

      So is air and water, but you can't just pollute them as you see fit. Rules exist for everyones benefit, they're not there just to piss you off personally. Get over it.

    23. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the current rules don't exist for everyone's benefit, they exist for the benefit of long standing implicit cartels. The person you're responding to is saying that the rules should be structured for the benefit of consumers.

    24. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      We have the technology to create a network where you only pay for the device then become a node in a network: No monthly fees, bigger and more expensive node, faster your cross country connection

      how exactly is data supposed to get from one place to another without a service provider?

      mesh networks are great for short to medium range emergency communication, and it would be nice to have wifi mesh capabilities built into future phones however such a network can only grow so big before it has a congestive collapse, especially if it is used for day to day communication and data transfer.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    25. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      As long as you could compile it (though not load it) you could verify that it was the software used on the device.

      How? Read the firmware off the device and compare it bit for bit? How do you know you are getting the read firmware? Thanks to Snowden we know that the NSA hacks hard drive firmware to provide infected boot files to Windows but then when anyone tries to read them back later present the real uninfected ones to anti-virus software. A similar trick is used by XBOX 360 mod chips that alter the DVD drive's firmware but prevent the 360 from detecting it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Really, for less that $20 you can create a small tunable jammer.

      Yes, but in most places jammers are illegal. The point of the law is not to alter reality so they no longer exist, it is to punish people who abuse a shared resource by operating them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re: What an open source baseband can be. by peppepz · · Score: 1

      No matter how many internet comments you post, you still can't prevent other people from posting their own ones. A badly behaving radio will prevent all other radios working on the same frequency bands from operating correctly. It doesn't take a very powerful radio to cause massive denial of service. Also, a hacked radio could make use of frequencies that its owner hasn't paid to use.

    28. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mad bro?

    29. Re:What an open source baseband can be. by VikingNation · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that post. Very insightful.

  10. Regulatory issues by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most of it's probably regulatory issues. Anything that transmits radio has to be set up so it can't go outside the FCC-set limits (eg. stays within maximum allowable power for a given channel, stays only on assigned channels, etc. etc.). That used to be handled in hardware, but these days it's cheaper to use generic hardware that'll transmit at any power on any channel and then impose the limitations within the baseband code. And it's cheaper to allow updating of the baseband than it is to replace phones to fix problems in the baseband code. That combination means that open-source baseband would allow you to re-flash a baseband that'd go outside regulatory limits, which'd be a no-no. Combine with a legal environment where the phone manufacturer, not the consumer, would be the one sued (because they've got deep pockets and the consumers don't) and you can see why we have the situation we have.

    1. Re:Regulatory issues by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The irony is that if somebody really wanted to cause trouble they'd just buy or make a jammer. I can see why the FCC wants to have commercially sold devices certified, but they shouldn't need to be locked down to this degree. If people want to experiment with them, how is that worse than them experimenting with home-built hardware? You can legally buy hardware capable of broadcasting arbitrary signals on arbitrary frequencies already.

      And as far as changing IMEI/etc goes - an authentication system which is based on a number which is not unique to the account is a poor system. IMEI is just security by obscurity. Anybody who has physical possession of a phone can find its IMEI, including whoever sold it to you. Changing an IMEI is always possible, no matter how hard the phone vendors try to make it. The phone should just authenticate with a shared secret which is actually secret, or should use a smartcard built into the SIM/etc. And yes, I realize this would probably require changing GSM.

    2. Re:Regulatory issues by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      Making a jammer, yes, but buying radio hardware isn't quite that simple. For anything operating in unlicensed or open-access spectrum (eg. CB radio), it's easy to buy hardware that won't exceed the allowable limitations. Buying gear that can transmit on any channel and/or at any power usually requires having your license recorded as part of the sale. No license = no gear.

      As for the IMEI, as far as I know it's not used to authenticate to the cel network. That's done via the IMSI which is on the SIM. The IMEI's mostly used for locating hardware (eg. a lost/stolen phone). Authentication is done using a challenge/response system, and the key used to generate the response from the challenge is in secure storage in the SIM (can't be read short of direct physical access to the internals of the SIM). Unlike other systems, GSM treats the phone as just an interchangeable accessory, the subscriber identity and everything critical to network authentication is carried in the SIM. That's why I can pop the SIM out of one phone and pop it in another (or pop another carrier's SIM in my phone, if the phone isn't locked) and things Just Work.

    3. Re:Regulatory issues by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Have you ever built a ghz+ range radio from scratch?

      Do you not understand how much easier it is to fix with some software and flash a phone compared to building your own phone from scratch?

      IMEI ... security through obscurity ... oh geez, can you know less about how it works? Your IMEI identifies the phone. Your sim card authenticates you and tells them who you are. Copying an IMEI is ... well, more or less worthless unless you're on some shitty network like verizon which still doesn't use GSM and SIM cards. It has nothing to do with security.

      Whats that ... you don't realize that everyone is already ON GSM except Verizon?

      Its trivial to make an IMEI unchangeable. You make it controlled by fuses. You burn them once, and they simply physically will not ever burn again, thus can't be changed. This isn't anything new and electronics have done this since the 70s when I got into it, not sure when it really started.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:Regulatory issues by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      Making the IMEI physically unalterable doesn't help. If you can re-flash the baseband and firmware, you can make it ignore the burned-in IMEI in favor of a programmable one stored in the phone's non-volatile memory.

    5. Re:Regulatory issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No license = no gear.

      Not in 'merka, at least not in a chain shop or online. I'm sure there are some mom 'n pop ham shops that won't sell on principle, but I've never seen one. Many ham rigs can be band unlocked by software or a jumper. Commercial gear is easily available on ebay, even stuff not typically sold to civilians like AES crypto. The commercial grey market is there and huge for anyone that's looking.

      Beyond that, SDRs and cheap electronics fabrication have made radio hardware regs irrelevant. I've got a BladeRF in the closet that'll push or pull 5MHz+ of whatever I want anywhere I want between ~300MHz and ~3GHz. Sure, it's only a few hundred milliwatts of transmit power, but power amps are pretty easy to come by, and I can always just get some boards printed based on a published ham design.

      Luckily there's a fairly substantial barrier to entry for DIY, and jamming (or transmitting anything else!) a significant distance is nontrivial from a technical standpoint even if you're a pro with lots of money. It's a non-problem, and any asshole with enough power to be a nuisiance will get a visit from the FCC party van pretty quick.

    6. Re:Regulatory issues by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Copying an IMEI is ... well, more or less worthless unless you're on some shitty network like verizon which still doesn't use GSM and SIM cards. It has nothing to do with security.

      It wouldn't be illegal to spoof in many countries if it didn't matter.

      Whats that ... you don't realize that everyone is already ON GSM except Verizon?

      Considering that I have a GSM phone in my pocket, I'd say your statement is rather arrogant.

      Its trivial to make an IMEI unchangeable. You make it controlled by fuses.

      Security by obscurity. If you want to clone the IMEI you just make your own phone and you can make the IMEI whatever you want it to be. Or you can hack the baseband on the phone you already have. Or you replace the fuses.

      Yes, none of those is easy to do, which is why it is security by obscurity. It wouldn't be "obscurity" if it were easy to do. The point is that there is no algorithmic/cryptographic protection. In some sense even smartcards suffer this problem, but at least those do use an embedded secret that never leaves the card which forces you to actually attack the hardware, and not merely replicate it.

  11. vever going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    open source baseband just isn't going to happen - at least not for anything that could be considered a "modern" network standard. The levels of complexity for 4G baseband and the like are in another universe when compared to anything currently in the open source world - and they change at a staggering rate.

  12. I'll pass. by Drunkulus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A phone from Canonical? This is the company who brings us the buggiest linux distribution in history, the company whose own forums got hacked and were down for two weeks while they tried to restore a backup. They have never made money and are completely dependent on the continued financial support of their self appointed benevolent dictator for life. With tens of millions in personal losses so far, and years past his own deadline for Canonical to break even, do you really trust that they will be around? I hear all the time that Ubuntu is good for linux. I suppose it is, the same way that factory farming is good for chickens.

    1. Re:I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'd rather be fucked in the ass by the biggest data miners on earth? Check.

    2. Re:I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thanks, I'm using my Openmoko Neo Freerunner while waiting for the Neo900. Unlike the free baseband, those devices are possible to do and are providing all the user freedoms that are possible to provide.

    3. Re:I'll pass. by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      If Google had not turned completely incompetent, and have shown their complete inability to produce a even half decent smartphone OS, I would agree.

      but at this point we need as many competitors as possible.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:I'll pass. by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      Canonical has their problems. Making money is not one of them
      They've made at least hundreds of millions.
      Mark Shuttlesworth, heard of him? bought a ticket to space.

      Do your research!

      your comment is a fail

    5. Re:I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canonical has made hundreds of millions? Since when? Canonical has yet to turn a profit. His hundreds of millions came from selling his CA to Verisign not Canonical.

    6. Re:I'll pass. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Mark Shuttlesworth, heard of him? bought a ticket to space.

      ...thanks to the fortune he made selling his company (Thawte) to Verisign.

  13. Sorry... but you can't have this. National Securit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am very sorry but we will not give you access to the radio.
    There is too much non-public functionality in a cell phone's
    radio that would wind up not being implemented or even deliberately
    exploited in a way that is damaging to the intended purposes of
    a cell phone.

    Sorry, but you will need to use Qualcomm's Advanced Mobile Subscriber
    Software (AMSS) or similar offerings that implements the entire
    cell phone feature-set both public and non-public.

    Now go back and debate Android vs. Ubuntu's finer points on the application
    core of your phone and forget about what the radio core is doing on your phone
    right now in this moment.

  14. It's not that easy. by dos1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the open source baseband was even remotely feasible to do, open projects like Openmoko, OpenPhoenux (GTA04, Neo900) together with OsmocomBB would already come up with 100% open GSM device. The people working on those project dream to be able to do that, but they simply can't. OsmocomBB is practically a research project, as there are no practical use-cases for it to "normal user" (in most countries it's illegal to use modem with OsmocomBB on it unless you're operating it with your own BTS-lab network you got permission to set up for development or research purposes), and it only operates on very old devices with TI Calypso, as basically all of more modern basebands are cryptographically signed (TI Calypso was also supposed to be, but for some unknown reason that feature was disabled, probably due to misconfiguration at the factory - this is the only reason OsmocomBB was possible at all).

    Unless we do lots of legal lobbying and raise much more resources than a company like Canonical has (trust me, building proper 4G modem is awfully hard and expensive. You have to comply to several thousands pages of protocol documentation and pass many certifications. Canonical probably could would be able to afford producing Ubuntu Edge, but they certainly won't be able to afford the modem development), it's much more helpful to look at projects like Neo900 ( http://neo900.org/ ) which aim for the best possible separation between APE and the baseband with built-in monitoring in case you suspect modem might be doing something malicious. In my opinion, this is the proper step forward the truly free mobile devices in our pockets, not shouting and demanding open basebands (even if we all, including Neo900 developers, dream about them).

    1. Re:It's not that easy. by dos1 · · Score: 2

      Also, "The choice of Canonical to use a binary only baseband is even more disappointing when Osmocom have already produced a functional open-source GSM baseband for the Calypso chipset. One must wonder why was this not adopted or improved upon by the talented individuals at Canonical, especially given the previous enthusiasm for open-source philosophy."

      The reason is simple. They didn't want to limit their capabilities to 2G EDGE. I suppose that the target niche that could accept such limitation to gain some freedom already has their Freerunners in their pockets.

      I so much want a free device and I completely agree with the spirit of the article, but it's unfortunately so damn wrong at technical level it hurts :(

    2. Re:It's not that easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, compliance testing Osmocom BB would be an enormous effort. This is something you can do in house (at least for the European market), but the skills and equipment are very specialised and likely unavailable outside companies already making basebands.

  15. Ubuntu doesn't care about OSS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since when did Ubuntu care about being 100% open-source? As I recall, Ubuntu gained share early on because it was one of the few which said "Closed source video blobs? No Problem!".

    Why would phones be any different? Why would Ubuntu care if the baseband code is proprietary but it worked? None of this has seemed to matter for Ubuntu ever, so why does this summary suggest they will ever care?

  16. Re: I'll pass.... nail on the head by mexsudo · · Score: 0

    Yup, you nailed it

  17. Not so open source friendly by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Google and open source? Hmm...

    How about an open source Hangouts client to begin with? Or at least a protocol spec so that I can write my own?

    1. Re:Not so open source friendly by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      ...

      The protocol is XMPP. The video and audio is Jingle. Its rather well known and isn't something Google Invented. (maybe they did make Jingle? Can't recall off the top of my head). Not sure how they do the apps and desktop sharing portions.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Not so open source friendly by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      The protocol is not XMPP anymore, not since Talk was phased out in favor of Hangouts. It was pretty big news item a year ago, did you miss it? It even made the EFF chime in to complain.

      Coincidentally, a mere week before that happened, Microsoft added Google Talk support to outlook.com webmail (which already supported FB chat and Live/Skype). Needless to say, said support became effectively dysfunctional for anyone who "upgraded" from Talk to Hangouts.

    3. Re:Not so open source friendly by jopsen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Coincidentally, a mere week before that happened, Microsoft added Google Talk support to outlook.com webmail (which already supported FB chat and Live/Skype). Needless to say, said support became effectively dysfunctional for anyone who "upgraded" from Talk to Hangouts.

      Yeah, Google really took a page from the Microsoft playbook there...

      I seriously doubt they're going to get us anything open sourced. Google is starting to look more like Microsoft in the 90'ties.

      This move is particularly sad, because Google went with XMPP because they didn't have a customer base and needed others to open up and integrate. And now that Microsoft plays ball, Google just kicks it off the field.


      On-topic, open source baseband isn't so important. It's not really something that very hackable anyways. Nor should it be hackable, just imagine teenager bringing down the GSM network by playing around with their firm ware. That is not a good thing.
      Nevertheless, Mozilla with Firefox OS might eventually be in a position to pressure manufacturers at some point. I know they should love to, but there is still some market to grow before they have enough leverage.

    4. Re:Not so open source friendly by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Given the legal issues I don't think the entire smart phone industry combined is actually big enough to get the baseband code opensourced.

    5. Re:Not so open source friendly by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, Google complained that MS doesn't really "play ball" in that they didn't open their own networks in the same way (e.g. Skype), and that is a valid complaint.

      Still, it's a really sad state of affairs when the most cross-platform mainstream IM network is Facebook chat...

    6. Re:Not so open source friendly by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Well, Google complained that MS doesn't really "play ball" in that they didn't open their own networks in the same way (e.g. Skype), and that is a valid complaint.

      valid complaint, true. But it's not a valid reason for closing the network.

    7. Re:Not so open source friendly by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Given the legal issues I don't think the entire smart phone industry combined is actually big enough to get the baseband code opensourced.

      I'm no expert, but I imagine it could be open sourced. But you're probably right that people won't be allowed to flash their own baseband code. Which makes source availability a lot less interesting. Even the ability to verify integrity of the binary would be hard, though useful..

  18. Open source baseband will never happen by jonwil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even if Samsung (the biggest phone maker in the world) decided it wanted open source baseband for its phones, it wouldn't happen.
    It wont happen because of:
    1.NDAs and secret stuff. (last I checked, protocols like GSM still contain stuff you cant officially get without NDAs, also the makers of the cellular radio hardware would never give away the secrets of their cellular radio hardware to their competitors)
    2.Patents (with all the patents applying to cellular technology, any source that was made available would be examined by an army of patent lawyers looking for violations, also some of the license agreements tied to cellular standards probably specifically prohibit sharing source with anyone who hasn't also signed a patent agreement)
    3.Carriers (no carrier is going to want a baseband that could be changed because it could be changed in ways that harm their networks (maybe not intentionally but it could still happen)
    4.Regulations (FCC and other regulators have strict rules about how cellphones are allowed to operate and I doubt they would allow a phone with an open source baseband to get approval because such a phone could be modified to violate the rules)

    1. Re:Open source baseband will never happen by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      Nice to see someone who has more than a clue.
      I should have tagged the original story as flamebait

  19. RedHat targets corporations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The billionaires behind RedHat apparently

    Different target users. RedHat's users are willing to fund development and pay for expensive support contracts, Ubuntu's are not.

    1. Re:RedHat targets corporations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Who would have thought that giving away software for free and opening up all your software wouldn't be a big money maker?!? That's unpossible!!!"

      Where is there any mention of "unless its the right target group"?

      In other words, it is possible to do what the guy said and make money.

    2. Re:RedHat targets corporations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is there any mention of "unless its the right target group"?

      Well given that the discussion is around that RedHat can do it and Canonical can't I think mentioning the reason why does make sense don't you?

      In other words, it is possible to do what the guy said and make money.

      Yes but not for Canonical, because their target market is different.

  20. Re:Ubuntu isn't important enough for anything by gonnagetya · · Score: 1

    That's not entirely accurate. The other main version of Mint is called Linux Mint Debian, a Debian variant with a similar look and feel to the Ubuntu-based version, as well as having some enhancements like proper font anti-aliasing out of the box, but still being based on Debian as opposed to Ubuntu. This means that if Canonical goes batshit crazy (or crazier anyway) and makes enough decisions that are counter-productive to the future of the main Linux Mint edition, then the Mint guys can focus entirely on their Debian spin.

  21. Opportunity for amateur radio by VikingNation · · Score: 1

    Those who hold am amateur radio license would be able to build experiments to develop end-point radios with modulation techniques found in today's modern wireless communications systems. The trouble is that many of the folks in the amateur radio community are not 'pushing' the state of the art in communications technologies. Amateur radio operators have licenses to transmit but many lack the background in signal processing and software design to make it happen. The community as a whole needs amateur operators to embrace these areas and innovate.

    1. Re:Opportunity for amateur radio by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I hate to break the news to you , but holding an amateur radio license doesn't mean you can transmit whatever you please on the amateur bands. Digital transmissions are severely restricted in a number of countries and in most places if someone tried out some home brew modulation technique they'd soon find themselves without a license or a rig. You *might* be able to get away with it on the CB bands since they're virtually dead in most places now and no one really cares about them, but even then , you wouldn't be able to use it day to day as you'd get caught eventually if you did. Aside from that , 27Mhz is too low frequency for decent data rates anyway.

    2. Re:Opportunity for amateur radio by VikingNation · · Score: 1

      The frequencies 2305-2310 MHz provide bandwidths of 0.05-1MHz for full duplex analog or digital modes. Amateur operators appear to be secondary operators on that band however. Appears that most digital modes are low rate and low bandwidth. These would not provide bandwidth to approach data rates for EDGE let alone WCMA and LTE. The ARRL could have chosen to lobby Congress and the FCC years ago change rules to allow for more experimentation at higher bandwidths and frequencies.

  22. Who cares about the baseband? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    As long as baseband has its own isolated memory and can't physically subvert the OS I can live with trusting the baseband as much as I trust the carriers. (e.g. not at all)

    1. Re:Who cares about the baseband? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as baseband has its own isolated memory and can't physically subvert the OS

      How can you possibly verify this?

    2. Re:Who cares about the baseband? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      How can you possibly verify this?

      The baseband processor is a fully self-contained system with its own processors, memory and operating system. While there are devices sharing system memory to reduce BOM you start by selecting hardware with physically separate resources.

      Given a sane interface design the operating systems of baseband and smartphone have full control over what it does with data transmitted by each party. Sure a satanic baseband can exploit a weakness in the smartphone ... squarely the smartphones fault within the smartphones power to prevent.

  23. Canonical is the past not the future by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 1

    Canonical (with Ubuntu) just doesn't have that clout yet

    They won't ever, they've got no idea what they're doing.

    If (some may say 'when') Ubuntu gains a critical amount of market share

    when? Who writes this drivel? "Hey guys, I know I'm 8 YEARS hate to the party and the whole market is overflowing with MASSIVE players, but it's just a matter of time before we gain critical market share!". when? never.

  24. you don't need a "fully open baseband" by stenvar · · Score: 1

    From the point of view of the application processor, the baseband processor and its software can simply be treated as part of the communications infrastructure: closed source and inherently untrustworthy. All that is necessary is that the application processor is sufficiently isolated from the baseband processor. That isolation has been lacking in some phones, but Ubuntu and Firefox phones could easily provide it.

  25. No clout despite sales.... by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    Google doesn't have nearly as much clout with baseband manufacturers as you might think. For most people, the choice isn't between an Android phone and no phone, it's between an Android phone and a different phone, both which will have a baseband. So to the baseband manufacturer, whether their product is running under Android or something else makes very little difference.

    I guess is a manufacturer thought having an exclusive lock on Android phones was more profitable than what they are doing now they could go to Google and offer a deal, but since Google has very little control over the handset manufacturers it probably wouldn't have very much clout.

  26. Works in progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can an Ubuntu phone be taken serious when Touch is horribly buggy and hardly runs on anything. I tested it on my Nexus 7 and it was basically unusable it doesn't even have a working memory management. I would probable have better luck with Haiku. O well back to CM, at least it works and has a cool animation at startup. Which is all that matters if you want to look cooler and nerdier that the other guy reading his tablet on the toilet.

    If I remember right these are, more or less, experiments! There raw, and unfinished. They put the a base out there and want the community to hopefully fix/add/fine tune it.

  27. mod up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this should be modded up instead of the moron above.

  28. Faulty logic .. by DTentilhao · · Score: 1

    a) No phone maker has opensourced the baseband ..

    b) Ubuntu hasn't opensourced the baseband .......

    c) Therefore Ubuntu Phone isn't important .......

  29. Open Source only is BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open Source only is BS. I want Open Source an Open Hardware. Someone make a Linux based phone that has a processor from Open Cores. I'd buy that!

  30. Re:Ubuntu isn't important enough for anything by hobarrera · · Score: 1

    Mint has Mint Debian Edition as well. My guess is that if Ubuntu were to die tomorrow, Mint would keep living as that incarnation.