←back to thread

154 points walterbell | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
INTPenis ◴[] No.10736741[source]
Since I'm completely surprised by this project and very attracted to it I thought it was best to google around for some perspective. Found this http://www.pcworld.com/article/2960524/laptop-computers/why-...

Among other things. My first question was, is the hardware open? Couldn't find an answer to that.

Edit: Apparently revision 2 of Purism will possibly have Coreboot.

replies(3): >>10736758 #>>10736798 #>>10736827 #
creshal ◴[] No.10736827[source]
The CPU uses proprietary, binary microcode blobs.

The graphics chip needs proprietary, binary firmware blobs.

The ethernet chip needs proprietary, binary firmware blobs.

The BIOS is a proprietary, binary firmware blob.

"Respects your freedom" my ass. The only difference to a whitebox laptop is marketing. Dell's or Lenovo's linux offerings are just as "free".

(And chromebooks with Coreboot are, technically, more free than both.)

replies(4): >>10736975 #>>10737206 #>>10739064 #>>10739904 #
nextos ◴[] No.10737206[source]
Actually, a RockChip based Chromebook like C201 is completely free except for the 3D acceleration. Not even CPU microcodes. And it's dirty cheap.

I wonder why Purism didn't simply commission such a machine with the right 3D chip instead of going with a non-free and expensive option.

I would also love similar initiatives in the mobile space, but I reckon it is more challenging. Neo900 and Pyra are kind of cool though. And I'm hoping Jolla open sources Sailfish OS later this month or early new year.

replies(4): >>10737228 #>>10737541 #>>10740311 #>>10745038 #
creshal ◴[] No.10737228[source]
> I wonder why Purism didn't simply commission such a machine with the right 3D chip instead of going with a non-free and expensive option.

Because they can sell the "expensive" option (which, for the OEM itself, isn't even too expensive) at a much higher premium.

> I would also love similar initiatives in the mobile space, but I reckon it is more challenging.

In the mobile space it would be an even bigger exercise in futility: There is no, and will never be, a baseband chip with a free firmware. The FCC made that pretty clear back in the OpenMoko days – use our NSA-approved proprietary blob or you'll never sell in the developed world.

replies(4): >>10737623 #>>10737654 #>>10737849 #>>10738650 #
throwaway7767 ◴[] No.10738650[source]
If someone were to develop an open-source replacement firmware for a baseband chip, the hardware project could use that chip but ship with the manufacturers firmware. It would then be on the users to reflash if desired. I doubt the FCC can do anything about that, people are already doing this with the TI Calypso replacement firmware.
replies(2): >>10738753 #>>10739407 #
1. hackuser ◴[] No.10739407{3}[source]
Here are a few possibilities I've come across:

* OsmocomBB (http://bb.osmocom.org/trac/)

* An old HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7064187

* OKL4, a hypervisor, is used widely in basebands. AFAICT It was developed by Open Kernel Labs and was open. It seems to have been acquired by General Dynamics and I don't know it's current status (does anyone know more about it?) (https://gdmissionsystems.com/cyber/products/trusted-computin...)