About BSD OS - Is it truly open? reddit / BSD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- arilogue · 2021-04-15 16:53 As you know Trisquel, Hyperbola, Parabola, etc uses Libre-Linux kernel, libre drivers and don't use non-free anything. As I know BSD kernel is not bloated and it is open source but is BSD uses non-free drivers, apps, etc unlike Trisquel, Hyperbola, Parabola, etc or not? Thanks from now for your replies. Note: Sorry for my bad English : ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- gumnos · 2021-04-15 17:06 As best I understand it, the proprietary blobs are optional (though may be required to get certain hardware working). If the install has already managed to download & install them, you can remove them with $ doas fw_update -dav You can add `-n` if you want to see what it *would* remove without actually removing them. You can use $ doas fw_update -i to list which ones are installed and which are missing (and should be downloaded and installed if you want that particular hardware to work). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FUZxxl · 2021-04-15 17:19 Note that these instructions are for OpenBSD. Other systems might differ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FUZxxl · 2021-04-15 17:19 Each BSD system differs in this regard. Generally, you have the option to use closed source components and some might be shipped by default. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tutufufu593 · 2021-04-15 17:20 Which BSD system are you talking about? BSD/OS(as you named it) is a discontinued proprietary version of BSD. Now, FreeBSD uses non-free components(such as drivers and etc.), NetBSD and OpenBSD also have them. And as with Linux, there are versions which have no binary blobs. As example, there is LiberyBSD based on OpenBSD. If you are interested in it I suggest you to visit Hyperbola GNU/Linux website and follow its development because in a few years they’re going to switch to HyperbolaBSD which is based on LiberyBSD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- gumnos · 2021-04-15 17:36 Ah, whoops. Good point. For some reason I thought this was posted on /r/openbsd I've not tried monkeying with removing firmware blobs from other BSDs, so the OP's mileage may vary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2021-04-15 18:33 [deleted] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- arilogue · 2021-04-15 21:12 FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Dragonfly BSD, etc. all of them. Thanks for reply. I will follow Hyperbola from now on : ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tutufufu593 · 2021-04-15 21:18 If I understand correctly, you are pretty new to BSD systems. Seeking for maximum freedom and simplicity might be your choice but I would still recommend you to start with FreeBSD to understand core BSD concepts and ideas. Good luck! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- arilogue · 2021-04-15 22:54 you're right. thanks : ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- wfaulk · 2021-04-15 23:25 The only non-free components of OpenBSD that I can think of are binary firmwares that run solely within the hardware they support. But that's going to be true of Hyperbola, etc., too, unless they simply choose to not support those pieces of hardware. Even then it's just a function of the fact that the hardware's firmware is field-upgradable. No one would complain if that same firmware was merely on ROM in the hardware. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- edparadox · 2021-04-15 23:50 >No one would complain if that same firmware was merely on ROM in the hardware. Are you sure about this sentence? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2021-04-16 00:14 I wouldn't call the GPL truly free anymore than proprietary software. It places enormous restrictions requiring pages upon pages and three plus versions of the same document iterated over more than 20 years to guarantee what it calls "freedom". That "freedom" is a collectivist version of the term. There is no individual freedom - once you donate your code to a GPL project, it's legally murky to try and reuse that in a more permissive or proprietary project. While I suspect the US would rule in favor of the author, it's not been tried in the courts. I don't call it freedom if it places restrictions on its reuse, that's why I don't usually refer to software as "free" anymore as in freedom. It's fallacious - there will always be restrictions. That being said, the BSD licenses (and ISC, MIT etc) place fewer reuse restrictions on the end user. That's arguably more free from my point of view. As for the complaint that there's nonfree drivers and applications in the kernel or ports tree, I don't believe a firmware blob matters whether loaded by a kernel onto a device or a ROM on the device, in fact I prefer the former for the simple reason of easy updating, at a cheaper cost to the product and thus the consumer. If you do, blame the hardware, not the OS. You can exclude any driver or application from your system you don't want. That's your freedom. The fact that the BSDs have flexible dependencies is an even bigger draw there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- istarian · 2021-04-16 00:47 I think it's **public domain** software would truly fit your definition of "free". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2021-04-16 01:20 Most free, yes, but I don't care about "free". I care about open-ness. For me the MIT license is where it's at. Everything else is too excessive. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- wfaulk · 2021-04-16 01:29 Okay, no one? Probably not. But virtually no one. Virtually any hardware is doing things that you don't know about. Very little silicon is open-source. You have a piece of hardware, your OS asks it to do something, and the implementation details of how it does it are obscured. If you're getting to the point where you're up in arms about not knowing those implementation details, then you shouldn't be running computers that have Intel or AMD CPUs in them, either. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- kyleW_ne · 2021-04-16 02:17 Do you view Debian as open or not? OpenBSD much like Debian shipps no proprietary code and only installs proprietary code with fw_update. Problem is the Intel integrated graphics requires firmware and almost if not all wireless cards do too. So if you don't mind having vesa graphics and no wifi you can use OpenBSD just fine with no proprietary code. I consider that open enough! Some don't.