No, fuck you, you are not positively contributing to this discussion, that is the exact fucking point I was making in the first place. Instantly talking about another vendor's product is not, and I shall repeat this for the reading impared, not a positive contribution. It's either an advertisement or an off-topic comment, which would you prefer me to assume? That you're a softminded git or a slimely shell trying to promote someone's goods?
I couldn't care less if you like being called a cock in a suit or a prudish turd, I will call people whatever I wish because I don't have any particular desire to be nice to dipshits.
Looking at my former posts you could also learn that I tend to be right, you on the other hand tend to make stupid comments or ones that have no relation to the discussion at hand. It's not anger, my good man, it's me not giving a shit what some random kid that doesn't even bother sticking to the topic thinks.
While I didn't actually call you retarded (I called you a wanker and asked if you were retarded), you're still welcome, you certainly deserve it for being so fucking daft that you go off topic straight from the get-go, you didn't even take a tangent, you fucked off right away.
Who gives a shit what other companies do? This is about Intel and what they do. Contributing information about what OpenBSD does on a Linux discussion is retarded, and so is jibbering about Ralink on an Intel story. We are here because of Intel, not Ralink. Ralink does use firmware, but it's stored on the wireless card - if Ralink had a vital updated firmware version and didn't let OpenBSD redistribute the it, you may see a story like this one about them.
If you want to talk about good and open source solutions then look at vendorwatch.org, don't clutter the discussion with useless bullshit that has nothing to fucking do with the topic at hand.
How much money does it cost to sed the BSD licence replacing BSD words with Intel words and then >> piping it into the new licence file, or just using vi if you want to. I can do it in under a minute so I am pretty sure it would take an hour at a business like Intel, yet, that's probably the minimum wage worker doing that and suddenly everyone can use the firmware however they like. So, it'd cost them nothing, what's this weighing you're talking about? There is no revenue gained or lost, since the people already gave Intel the money, now they want to use what they bought.
What point? The one that you can't read? The one where you're too stupid to really understand what's going on before commenting? I'm not seeing your point at all, I'm just seeing a dumbass who thinks that because Theo de Raadt called Intel a bunch of liers, that suddenly he needs to comment on how mean they are. Perhaps, since you are so enlightened, you would bless us with an ounce of your eternal wisdom and light the path so that all can follow you on the road of life.
Noone said that there was a moral imperative for anything, except for you, noone said anyone had to give up documentation, except for you, you are here putting words into people's mouths and acting like a snotty little punk, so, perhaps you could be so kind as to read what people are actually saying and thinnking the next time you want to make a point, then you may actually succeed at something other than making an ass of yourself.
OpenBSD developers are saying Intel is lying to the people, since Intel is claiming to be a benefactor of the open source community, while at the same time it refuses to help them all the time for - lying about what they do and how nice they are. This is not a matter of opening up code, it's not a matter of giving documentation away (althought that would be lovely), what this is, is quite simple. OpenBSD telling anyone who cares that Intel are a bunch of liers and that if they want that to change they should tell Intel their feelings on the matter. The firmwares are a pain in the ass to get, because Intel doesn't care about the open source community, yet at the same time, it is claiming it cares about the open source community. You seem to be too stupid to grasp that, but I think I've spelt it out thoroughly enough that a retarded monkey would understand, so hopefully now you do too.
Oh, and if you wanted support for your hardware in the Linux kernel, you wouldn't need to justify it, or even do the development yourself, giving one set of documentation and a couple of your boards to a few interested developers would get a working driver done without you having to pay for it, but that had nothing to do with the subject at hand, that was you being stupid.
Are you retarded? What does the Ralink wireless driver have to fucking do with the firmware of the Intel wireless cards?
The fucking drivers are open source already - it's the firmware, that bitcode that sits on the wireless card itself, that is not open enough. Intel wants you to go online to download it after going through a click-through licensing agreement, OpenBSD wants to just have the firmware there, like they do with any reasonable piece of hardware's firmware.
What's the problem, are you hard of reading? Hard of English? Your comment was totally useless and completely off the topic at hand. You damned wanker.
It's a shame you're so stupid then, what is this product's name so that I may never purchase it?
Noone needs the documentation or the code or the firmware opened up, noone needs any of it. But if you are going to go and claim to support open source, yet prove this a lie by your own actions, people will get upset. Intel has no obligation to release their firmware for the wireless chipssets in any manner, be it under liberal or restrictive terms - but if they are saying they are good and friendly to open source and yet refuse flatly to be good and friendly to open source, they are being dicks and wasting people's time by lying to them.
Theo de Raadt isn't looking for the source code for the drivers, just the firmware to be redistributable. If you had a firmware upgrade, would you allow people to hand it out so your own customers could update the product they gave you money for?
Noone was asking for them to open source shit, they just want the firmware, the little bit of code that runs on the hardware, the code that lets the damned thing run at all, be sent out with all the operating systems of the world, so the hardware that depends on that firmware is actually usable.
There are no recent benchmarks, are you stupid or something? The last benchmark that came out comparing the BSDs and Linux was poorly done and over 3 years ago. Dumbass, who are these science buffs you're spouting this nonsense about? I have never seen any major scientific papers come out about how the scientists be loving the BSDs.
The Linux kernel is available on more platforms than NetBSD (it has been worked on by many more companies with more code being contributed back, the GPl has helped that), OpenBSD is more stably portable than NetBSD (the difference between cross-compliling everything and taking the time to actually check if it works makes a big differnce), FreeBSD and NetBSD's performance about three years ago were pretty close, you'd need to run some tests to determine if they are actually close anymore, so to my mind there is little that only NetBSD does right or better than others, there are things like it's Summer of Code stuff which is mildly interesting, like a BSD PGP and attempts at HFS and HFS+ support for NetBSD, but that stuff isn't really production ready.
If nothing more, it is the most portable of the BSDs and a reasonable middle ground of performance and security, not really looking Bowie knife, but more Jack knife. It does leave it reasonable for companies that are looking to embed, but not wanting to contribute back.
It's not like you couldn't just VNC in their most of the time when it was Windows though, ssh isn't a magic pill, it's easier, sure, but it's not the only way to remotely assist a family member. Which is it, RealVNC on Windows and tightvnc on OpenBSD?
I told people to read the Wikipedia articles which explain things clearly enough that even the thickest dullard would be able to understand, so I didn't think I had to make an essay out of it - but yes, I was explicitly saying OpenSSH is developed by OpenBSD, OpenSSH uses OpenSSL, but OpenSSL is developed by OpenSSL.
My 3/8 inch wrench doesn't keep people out of my pornography collection, it doesn't prevent me from getting computer viri, it doesn't protect me from nasty little idiot script kitties playing around in their parent's basement. OpenBSD does that.
Throwing around bullshit stats that are entirely out of date about a particular brand of wrench would still be something to make someone displeased - if the old Mastercraft wrenches broke easily and were made of inferior steel compounds and it's been years and many changes including perhaps the material itself they are made of, the old statistics of how often the outside fork broke off are no longer valid to the current Mastercraft wrench.
No, OpenSSL is developed by the OpenSSL project, what you are doing is a common misconception, it is covered in the Wikipedia articles of both OpenSSL and OpenSSH. OpenSSH uses OpenSSL for the encryption, but does not do the development of it, just like Open BIOS or OpenBSM, it's not under the wing of OpenBSD, it just has Open-* in the front of it's name.
If you'd be bothered to read some day, you'd know that the 2.9.5.3 gcc version is for hardware that is not supported by the more recent versions of gcc. The developers of gcc do not support as many platforms as OpenBSD does and thus the OpenBSD developers must either port the gcc to their platforms or use the older gcc version that still supported those hardware versions. OpenBSD uses 3.3.5 of the gcc for most platforms because it's not as dog-fuck slow as gcc 4.
No, this tells the story of OpenBSD 3.4, which is to say the OpenBSD that was out a full 3 years ago. If you don't have anything relevent to the real world, why make a comment like this?
What in the fuck are you talking about? They are not forks, I just said they are not forks, you agreed with me, and then contradicted yourself by saying they are forks of FreeBSD.
FreeBSD is not a branch of, "BSD 4.2 Light," FreeBSD is a fork of Jolix with such a long and divergent development that it looks nothing like that old 386BSD code. Once, long ago, both NetBSD and FreeBSD had a resyncing when they had to take their modifications to 386BSD and move it over to the 4.4BSD-lite codebase, but that doesn't make anything here a branch of another. FreeBSD is it's own operating system which works very little like 4.4BSD, just compare what's in the Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System to what's in the Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System - there's a reason they have different names.
There is no singular BSD kernel, each kernel and userland develop with one another in their own repositories - I think you may be one of those, "noobs," that has, "no idea about the BSD kernel."
DesktopBSD and PC-BSD are not forks of FreeBSD, they are add-ons to FreeBSD releases, they are prepackaged versions of FreeBSD, similar to your Linux, "distros," mix KDE with random home-brewed tools and pour into release version 5, 6, or whatever of FreeBSD, serve. DragonFly BSD, while interesting, is not really the system one should be looking into for regular day-to-day use, major design alterations are still underway in the system and as Dillon has said, it's not going to really be ready for a while. NetBSD as you've recently noticed has some issues, it's had stability problems on it's vaunted umpteen jillion platforms for going on the better half of a decade and at best users and developers have been ignoring much of it, the developers focus on making things cross-compile rather than making sure they natively compile and actually run.
If you want to try a BSD, FreeBSD is the most Linux distribution-like of the BSDs, while OpenBSD is the most BSD-like of the BSDs, it's a matter of if you like the old Unix stuff or the newer Linux stuff. Generally speaking FreeBSD is the less GNU-style free, as in that whole freedom schtick, of the two, with better performance and more bells and whistles, while OpenBSD is the more secure, stable, conservative of the two. OpenBSD has better overall documentation, while FreeBSD has several really nice books, like the DAIOTFOS and the Handbook.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD Or you could just look at the OpenBSD article on Wikipedia which clearly states it out, 32.8 percent of the people surveyed by the BSD Certification Group said they use OpenBSD, 77 percent of the people said they use FreeBSD, 16.3 percent of the people said they use NetBSD and 2.6 percent said they use DragonFly BSD - none of these were exclusive uses, so a person who uses both NetBSD and FreeBSD is counted in both percentiles.
I think that is obvious, Mr. Bigshot voiceman would use the voice of a distinguished, successful, not broke, doctor, he would; a red lobster so rich, successful and charming that everyone loves him! Yes, would be Zoidberg! Everyone loves Zoidberg, hurray!
And if you had read the threads here you'd notice a lot of people care if OpenBSD supports something, people who don't even use OpenBSD check to see if it supports a particular device prior to purchase, since OpenBSD has a very strong stance on free and open , one significantly stronger than the likes of your average Linux project and decidedly stronger than the other BSDs.
You may also have noticed how many people point out that when you are dealing with cryptography or security, you deal with OpenBSD. Hifn's cards are used in several places, but notably in the security field, where OpenBSD lives. OpenBSD users are the target demographic for crypto acceleration cards.
Theo isn't the idiot here, as Hifn obviously cares, they cared enough to talk to the misc@ mailing list and try to get people on their side.
I admit I would rather someone of Theo's importance use a little more diplomatic speach, but I don't bother myself, so why should I hold him to a higher standard than I hold myself?
OpenBSD isn't hurt when someone doesn't use it - OpenBSD keeps being OpenBSD regardless. There is no drive in the OpenBSD community to become like Ubuntu or Redhat, OpenBSD isn't looking to win a popularity contest. OpenBSD's developers make what they want and let you use it, unlike Ubuntu which makes something for children and the mentally handicapped. Gentoo is looking to win a popularity contest, Gentoo is for ricers - OpenBSD is for OpenBSD developers and those who appreciate what they do.
And there would be no hours involved in your hypothetical situation, there would be the 5 minutes of installing and the minute it takes to see no hifn driver in dmesg then the second to Google it. Whoo, scarey.
No, you were my foe long ago, I foe stupid people. Had you not been my foe already, your post here would have gotten me to foe you. Lame? Hardly, the purpose of the friend/foe system is to help filter comments, I just would rather not read what stupid people have to say.
There shouldn't be an Ubuntu-libre, that should be the only option. Yes, the OpenBSD developers list known compatible hardware - that's how things should work within free software, if it isn't free than you shouldn't go calling it free, if it isn't open, you should not call it open. Ubuntu's regular stuff calls itself free and open, but it isn't, it's just trying to be popular, convenient and cost-free.
By running with closed source blobs crammed into their systems they make the hardware companies feel secure in their choice to distribute those blobs and encourages them to not give proper documentation or open source drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
No, fuck you, you are not positively contributing to this discussion, that is the exact fucking point I was making in the first place. Instantly talking about another vendor's product is not, and I shall repeat this for the reading impared, not a positive contribution. It's either an advertisement or an off-topic comment, which would you prefer me to assume? That you're a softminded git or a slimely shell trying to promote someone's goods?
I couldn't care less if you like being called a cock in a suit or a prudish turd, I will call people whatever I wish because I don't have any particular desire to be nice to dipshits.
Looking at my former posts you could also learn that I tend to be right, you on the other hand tend to make stupid comments or ones that have no relation to the discussion at hand. It's not anger, my good man, it's me not giving a shit what some random kid that doesn't even bother sticking to the topic thinks.
While I didn't actually call you retarded (I called you a wanker and asked if you were retarded), you're still welcome, you certainly deserve it for being so fucking daft that you go off topic straight from the get-go, you didn't even take a tangent, you fucked off right away.
Who gives a shit what other companies do? This is about Intel and what they do. Contributing information about what OpenBSD does on a Linux discussion is retarded, and so is jibbering about Ralink on an Intel story. We are here because of Intel, not Ralink. Ralink does use firmware, but it's stored on the wireless card - if Ralink had a vital updated firmware version and didn't let OpenBSD redistribute the it, you may see a story like this one about them.
If you want to talk about good and open source solutions then look at vendorwatch.org, don't clutter the discussion with useless bullshit that has nothing to fucking do with the topic at hand.
How much money does it cost to sed the BSD licence replacing BSD words with Intel words and then >> piping it into the new licence file, or just using vi if you want to. I can do it in under a minute so I am pretty sure it would take an hour at a business like Intel, yet, that's probably the minimum wage worker doing that and suddenly everyone can use the firmware however they like. So, it'd cost them nothing, what's this weighing you're talking about? There is no revenue gained or lost, since the people already gave Intel the money, now they want to use what they bought.
What point? The one that you can't read? The one where you're too stupid to really understand what's going on before commenting? I'm not seeing your point at all, I'm just seeing a dumbass who thinks that because Theo de Raadt called Intel a bunch of liers, that suddenly he needs to comment on how mean they are. Perhaps, since you are so enlightened, you would bless us with an ounce of your eternal wisdom and light the path so that all can follow you on the road of life.
Noone said that there was a moral imperative for anything, except for you, noone said anyone had to give up documentation, except for you, you are here putting words into people's mouths and acting like a snotty little punk, so, perhaps you could be so kind as to read what people are actually saying and thinnking the next time you want to make a point, then you may actually succeed at something other than making an ass of yourself.
OpenBSD developers are saying Intel is lying to the people, since Intel is claiming to be a benefactor of the open source community, while at the same time it refuses to help them all the time for - lying about what they do and how nice they are. This is not a matter of opening up code, it's not a matter of giving documentation away (althought that would be lovely), what this is, is quite simple. OpenBSD telling anyone who cares that Intel are a bunch of liers and that if they want that to change they should tell Intel their feelings on the matter. The firmwares are a pain in the ass to get, because Intel doesn't care about the open source community, yet at the same time, it is claiming it cares about the open source community. You seem to be too stupid to grasp that, but I think I've spelt it out thoroughly enough that a retarded monkey would understand, so hopefully now you do too.
Oh, and if you wanted support for your hardware in the Linux kernel, you wouldn't need to justify it, or even do the development yourself, giving one set of documentation and a couple of your boards to a few interested developers would get a working driver done without you having to pay for it, but that had nothing to do with the subject at hand, that was you being stupid.
Are you retarded? What does the Ralink wireless driver have to fucking do with the firmware of the Intel wireless cards?
The fucking drivers are open source already - it's the firmware, that bitcode that sits on the wireless card itself, that is not open enough. Intel wants you to go online to download it after going through a click-through licensing agreement, OpenBSD wants to just have the firmware there, like they do with any reasonable piece of hardware's firmware.
What's the problem, are you hard of reading? Hard of English? Your comment was totally useless and completely off the topic at hand. You damned wanker.
It's a shame you're so stupid then, what is this product's name so that I may never purchase it?
Noone needs the documentation or the code or the firmware opened up, noone needs any of it. But if you are going to go and claim to support open source, yet prove this a lie by your own actions, people will get upset. Intel has no obligation to release their firmware for the wireless chipssets in any manner, be it under liberal or restrictive terms - but if they are saying they are good and friendly to open source and yet refuse flatly to be good and friendly to open source, they are being dicks and wasting people's time by lying to them.
Theo de Raadt isn't looking for the source code for the drivers, just the firmware to be redistributable. If you had a firmware upgrade, would you allow people to hand it out so your own customers could update the product they gave you money for?
Noone was asking for them to open source shit, they just want the firmware, the little bit of code that runs on the hardware, the code that lets the damned thing run at all, be sent out with all the operating systems of the world, so the hardware that depends on that firmware is actually usable.
How hard was that to understand?
Well, he's landed Canadian, he's actually South American by birth, Afrikaaner or whatever you'd prefer to call the South Africans of Dutch decent.
There are no recent benchmarks, are you stupid or something? The last benchmark that came out comparing the BSDs and Linux was poorly done and over 3 years ago. Dumbass, who are these science buffs you're spouting this nonsense about? I have never seen any major scientific papers come out about how the scientists be loving the BSDs.
If nothing more, it is the most portable of the BSDs and a reasonable middle ground of performance and security, not really looking Bowie knife, but more Jack knife. It does leave it reasonable for companies that are looking to embed, but not wanting to contribute back.
It's not like you couldn't just VNC in their most of the time when it was Windows though, ssh isn't a magic pill, it's easier, sure, but it's not the only way to remotely assist a family member. Which is it, RealVNC on Windows and tightvnc on OpenBSD?
I told people to read the Wikipedia articles which explain things clearly enough that even the thickest dullard would be able to understand, so I didn't think I had to make an essay out of it - but yes, I was explicitly saying OpenSSH is developed by OpenBSD, OpenSSH uses OpenSSL, but OpenSSL is developed by OpenSSL.
My 3/8 inch wrench doesn't keep people out of my pornography collection, it doesn't prevent me from getting computer viri, it doesn't protect me from nasty little idiot script kitties playing around in their parent's basement. OpenBSD does that.
Throwing around bullshit stats that are entirely out of date about a particular brand of wrench would still be something to make someone displeased - if the old Mastercraft wrenches broke easily and were made of inferior steel compounds and it's been years and many changes including perhaps the material itself they are made of, the old statistics of how often the outside fork broke off are no longer valid to the current Mastercraft wrench.
No, OpenSSL is developed by the OpenSSL project, what you are doing is a common misconception, it is covered in the Wikipedia articles of both OpenSSL and OpenSSH. OpenSSH uses OpenSSL for the encryption, but does not do the development of it, just like Open BIOS or OpenBSM, it's not under the wing of OpenBSD, it just has Open-* in the front of it's name.
If you'd be bothered to read some day, you'd know that the 2.9.5.3 gcc version is for hardware that is not supported by the more recent versions of gcc. The developers of gcc do not support as many platforms as OpenBSD does and thus the OpenBSD developers must either port the gcc to their platforms or use the older gcc version that still supported those hardware versions. OpenBSD uses 3.3.5 of the gcc for most platforms because it's not as dog-fuck slow as gcc 4.
No, this tells the story of OpenBSD 3.4, which is to say the OpenBSD that was out a full 3 years ago. If you don't have anything relevent to the real world, why make a comment like this?
What in the fuck are you talking about? They are not forks, I just said they are not forks, you agreed with me, and then contradicted yourself by saying they are forks of FreeBSD.
FreeBSD is not a branch of, "BSD 4.2 Light," FreeBSD is a fork of Jolix with such a long and divergent development that it looks nothing like that old 386BSD code. Once, long ago, both NetBSD and FreeBSD had a resyncing when they had to take their modifications to 386BSD and move it over to the 4.4BSD-lite codebase, but that doesn't make anything here a branch of another. FreeBSD is it's own operating system which works very little like 4.4BSD, just compare what's in the Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System to what's in the Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System - there's a reason they have different names.
There is no singular BSD kernel, each kernel and userland develop with one another in their own repositories - I think you may be one of those, "noobs," that has, "no idea about the BSD kernel."
DesktopBSD and PC-BSD are not forks of FreeBSD, they are add-ons to FreeBSD releases, they are prepackaged versions of FreeBSD, similar to your Linux, "distros," mix KDE with random home-brewed tools and pour into release version 5, 6, or whatever of FreeBSD, serve. DragonFly BSD, while interesting, is not really the system one should be looking into for regular day-to-day use, major design alterations are still underway in the system and as Dillon has said, it's not going to really be ready for a while. NetBSD as you've recently noticed has some issues, it's had stability problems on it's vaunted umpteen jillion platforms for going on the better half of a decade and at best users and developers have been ignoring much of it, the developers focus on making things cross-compile rather than making sure they natively compile and actually run.
If you want to try a BSD, FreeBSD is the most Linux distribution-like of the BSDs, while OpenBSD is the most BSD-like of the BSDs, it's a matter of if you like the old Unix stuff or the newer Linux stuff. Generally speaking FreeBSD is the less GNU-style free, as in that whole freedom schtick, of the two, with better performance and more bells and whistles, while OpenBSD is the more secure, stable, conservative of the two. OpenBSD has better overall documentation, while FreeBSD has several really nice books, like the DAIOTFOS and the Handbook.
Infact, the support for VAX recently helped find some bugs and lead to multiplatform fixes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD Or you could just look at the OpenBSD article on Wikipedia which clearly states it out, 32.8 percent of the people surveyed by the BSD Certification Group said they use OpenBSD, 77 percent of the people said they use FreeBSD, 16.3 percent of the people said they use NetBSD and 2.6 percent said they use DragonFly BSD - none of these were exclusive uses, so a person who uses both NetBSD and FreeBSD is counted in both percentiles.
I think that is obvious, Mr. Bigshot voiceman would use the voice of a distinguished, successful, not broke, doctor, he would; a red lobster so rich, successful and charming that everyone loves him! Yes, would be Zoidberg! Everyone loves Zoidberg, hurray!
Indeed, vhee zeey furst releesed it I hed huped zeey vuoold incloode-a zee edfunced trunsleshun tuul in footoore-a releeses es a tuggle-a, leeke-a zee Oothur mude-a, Shoo imeges oor Feet tu veendoo veedt tuggles Oopera hes, thet vey uny seete-a cuoold be-a b0rked.
Bork, Bork, Bork!
And if you had read the threads here you'd notice a lot of people care if OpenBSD supports something, people who don't even use OpenBSD check to see if it supports a particular device prior to purchase, since OpenBSD has a very strong stance on free and open , one significantly stronger than the likes of your average Linux project and decidedly stronger than the other BSDs.
You may also have noticed how many people point out that when you are dealing with cryptography or security, you deal with OpenBSD. Hifn's cards are used in several places, but notably in the security field, where OpenBSD lives. OpenBSD users are the target demographic for crypto acceleration cards.
Theo isn't the idiot here, as Hifn obviously cares, they cared enough to talk to the misc@ mailing list and try to get people on their side.
I admit I would rather someone of Theo's importance use a little more diplomatic speach, but I don't bother myself, so why should I hold him to a higher standard than I hold myself?
You are an idiot.
OpenBSD isn't hurt when someone doesn't use it - OpenBSD keeps being OpenBSD regardless. There is no drive in the OpenBSD community to become like Ubuntu or Redhat, OpenBSD isn't looking to win a popularity contest. OpenBSD's developers make what they want and let you use it, unlike Ubuntu which makes something for children and the mentally handicapped. Gentoo is looking to win a popularity contest, Gentoo is for ricers - OpenBSD is for OpenBSD developers and those who appreciate what they do.
And there would be no hours involved in your hypothetical situation, there would be the 5 minutes of installing and the minute it takes to see no hifn driver in dmesg then the second to Google it. Whoo, scarey.
No, you were my foe long ago, I foe stupid people. Had you not been my foe already, your post here would have gotten me to foe you. Lame? Hardly, the purpose of the friend/foe system is to help filter comments, I just would rather not read what stupid people have to say.
There shouldn't be an Ubuntu-libre, that should be the only option. Yes, the OpenBSD developers list known compatible hardware - that's how things should work within free software, if it isn't free than you shouldn't go calling it free, if it isn't open, you should not call it open. Ubuntu's regular stuff calls itself free and open, but it isn't, it's just trying to be popular, convenient and cost-free.
By running with closed source blobs crammed into their systems they make the hardware companies feel secure in their choice to distribute those blobs and encourages them to not give proper documentation or open source drivers.