From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1NH19c-0006La-0D for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:22:56 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NH19Z-0006K6-Vb for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:22:54 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NH19V-0006Fa-9A for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:22:53 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54540 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NH19U-0006FR-Rl for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:22:48 -0500 Received: from xvm-190-8.ghst.net ([217.70.190.8]:37521 helo=aybabtu.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NH19U-0005Dv-D8 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:22:48 -0500 Received: from [192.168.10.10] (helo=thorin) by aybabtu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NH19R-00070v-Me for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:22:45 +0100 Received: from rmh by thorin with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NH19Q-0000s4-TK for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:22:44 +0100 Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 21:22:44 +0100 From: Robert Millan To: The development of GNU GRUB Message-ID: <20091205202244.GA32638@thorin> References: <20091202202646.GD23641@turki.gavron.org> <4B17D641.4070000@gmail.com> <2e59e6970912031627h5c9839b7wcf01171ee7574c8c@mail.gmail.com> <20091204213649.GP1528@thorin> <4B198A82.7060505@gmail.com> <2e59e6970912041928q57083b58yb5ed7aae8e6cd01f@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2e59e6970912041928q57083b58yb5ed7aae8e6cd01f@mail.gmail.com> Organization: free as in freedom X-Message-Flag: Worried about Outlook viruses? Switch to Thunderbird! www.mozilla.com/thunderbird X-Debbugs-No-Ack: true User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Subject: Re: USB device not seen by grub X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:22:54 -0000 On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 09:28:32PM -0600, richardvoigt@gmail.com wrote: > > And all of this only to make good to someone who would like to see every > > free software die? > > Not all supporters of free software share that philosophy, quite a few > of us like to be able to tell people "that proprietary software you > use, well, it works better with free software". And sometimes free > software is enriched by playing well with closed-source. Our standpoint is very clear: proprietary software restraints users; this is unethical and therefore proprietary software should not exist. However, we do support interoperation with proprietary software. In fact the Linux images that are loaded by GRUB include non-free firmware in them more often than not. And we also support systems that are entirely non-free. When we do this, it is not a matter of principle but a matter of strategy. MS Windows already has its own proprietary bootloader, and GRUB isn't even capable of acting as a full replacement to it. GRUB isn't helping Microsoft build their proprietary OS (the GPL prevents this), so there's no benefit in refusing to support it. The situation is similar for e.g. MacOS X. As for adding generic support for BIOS callbacks, I appreciate Vladimir's remarks, and conclude that this needs to be considered carefully. Even from a purely technical point of view, I don't have a clear idea what it would be used for. Perhaps you can explain the situations on which you think this is useful? If you seek to persuade us, this is much more effective than the philosophical debate, since our goals are already well stablished, and the only question is whether this proposed feature helps us bring them further or does the opposite instead. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."