bucy wrote:
] ]
] ] Since that time, the situation has changed. Today the
] ] BIOS is no longer burned in ROM; it is stored in
] ] nonvolatile writable memory that users can rewrite. Today
] ] the BIOS sits square on the edge of the line. It comes
] ] prewritten in our computers, and normally we never
] ] install another. So far, that is just barely enough to
] ] excuse treating it as hardware. But once in a while the
] ] manufacturer suggests installing another BIOS, which is
] ] available only as an executable. This, clearly, is
] ] installing a non-free program--it is just as bad as
] ] installing Microsoft Windows, or Adobe Photoshop, or
] ] Sun's Java Platform. As the unethical practice of
] ] installing another BIOS executable becomes common, the
] ] version delivered inside the computer starts to raise an
] ] ethical problem issue as well.
]
] FSF is starting to make a stink about BIOS now.

Ok, so I've never claimed to think properly -- can anyone explain why this matters?

Why is closed source software inherently evil? Why am I inherently evil for not wanting to give away what I write (which is not to say anything I've written is worth giving away, let alone buying). FSF argues the rights of the users to fiddle with the code; do the coders get no rights to decide, "Hey, I don't want this screwed with" ?

Additionaly, what thought process says that using closed source software is unethical? What ethical theory does that comes from?

I just don't understand.

*shrugs*

Anyway -- I poked around on the FSF site but didn't find any immediate answers and I'm more than happy to continue being a tool of the evil empire because it makes my life much simpler.

Right. So, comments? Links? Anything?

bucy wrote:
] ]
] ] Since that time, the situation has changed. Today the
] ] BIOS is no longer burned in ROM; it is stored in
] ] nonvolatile writable memory that users can rewrite. Today
] ] the BIOS sits square on the edge of the line. It comes
] ] prewritten in our computers, and normally we never
] ] install another. So far, that is just barely enough to
] ] excuse treating it as hardware. But once in a while the
] ] manufacturer suggests installing another BIOS, which is
] ] available only as an executable. This, clearly, is
] ] installing a non-free program--it is just as bad as
] ] installing Microsoft Windows, or Adobe Photoshop, or
] ] Sun's Java Platform. As the unethical practice of
] ] installing another BIOS executable becomes common, the
] ] version delivered inside the computer starts to raise an
] ] ethical problem issue as well.
]
] FSF is starting to make a stink about BIOS now.

Stallman is once again blinded by ideology. Short of DRM BIOSes (Which seem eternally stuck in standards body limbo), what does the bios matter?

I have an old Packard Bell 486-DX2 motherboard I use for hardware hacking. Its small LBX form factor, so everything is on the board and has a lower profile than an ATX. It's BIOS is over 12 years old and will not recognize a drive larger than 504 megs.

And you know what? That doesn't matter. I have a 10 Gig drive attached to it, partitioned in a way so /boot is visible. Linux boots, detects, and provides (while slow) access to the whole drive. I have a ATAPI CDROM attached, which BIOS also doesn't recognize or have any idea how to handle. Linux does, and I've ripped CDs just fine. I even have a ISA/PCMCIA adapter, and, using a USB card, have added USB functionality to this box. BIOS is configured not to panic about the lack of a keyboard, and Linux sees the USB keyboard and mouse just fine.

None of these features are supported by the BIOS, nor do they need to be. Linux doesn't use BIOS functions through interrupts. I would be very surprised if the NT line of Windows used BIOS interrupts. Thus Stallman's whole rant about being locked in to the functionality provided by some proprietary BIOS is totally without merit, and the proof is happily spinning cycles right next to me.

Short of finding me a boot sector, the BIOS and its functionality are obsolete.

bucy wrote:
] ]
] ] Since that time, the situation has changed. Today the
] ] BIOS is no longer burned in ROM; it is stored in
] ] nonvolatile writable memory that users can rewrite. Today
] ] the BIOS sits square on the edge of the line. It comes
] ] prewritten in our computers, and normally we never
] ] install another. So far, that is just barely enough to
] ] excuse treating it as hardware. But once in a while the
] ] manufacturer suggests installing another BIOS, which is
] ] available only as an executable. This, clearly, is
] ] installing a non-free program--it is just as bad as
] ] installing Microsoft Windows, or Adobe Photoshop, or
] ] Sun's Java Platform. As the unethical practice of
] ] installing another BIOS executable becomes common, the
] ] version delivered inside the computer starts to raise an
] ] ethical problem issue as well.
]
] FSF is starting to make a stink about BIOS now.

I'm equally perplexed about why this is suddenly an issue. Its not as if motherboard manufacturers are stuck with using a single companies BIOS. How much do you think out of the cost of a mobo is a license fee for the BIOS?

And Intel is automaticly "the bad guy" because they are not immediately keen to release the specs FSF demands of their intellectual property? So whats next? Demand CPU manufacturers disclose the blueprints for their chips so someone can make a "free CPU"?? FHF! Heh!

FSF - while a noble cause none the less, occasionally has their head up their ass.

LB