Re: USB device not seen by grub

[Robert Millan]

On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 09:28:32PM -0600, address@hidden 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."