Linked by crystall on Tue 21st Dec 2010 22:35 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 454486
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-06
Jokes aside you are making a very valid point, more and more software is being used on our machines (think about SSD controllers firmware) and we have no control over it, nor the source is available. This exposes us to two problems:
- support, if the vendor responsible for your hardware decides that it isn't worth to keep old firmware up to date you might end up with bugs which will never be fixed
- security, bugs in those firmwares could be responsible for new vulnerabilities and attack vectors and again you'd have no control over it nor the possibility to fix them unless the vendor issues an update
All in all I think that Debian's choice is not ideological, it's very pragmatical and involves on-board firmwares too. Not being able to control them leaves us exposed to all the problems involved with proprietary code and closed architectures.
Finally we have already seen quite a bit of firmware-based differentiation lately, with performance or feature caps enforced by software. I expect more to come in the future and that's why it is in the user's best interest to be able to control what they buy and do what they want with their hardware.