The Need for Open Hardware 382
bwt asks: "With all the talk of DRM lately, it occurs to me that the entire concept depends on limiting the choice for computer hardware. OK, so the proper reaction to the copyright industry's attempts at PC market control is to be able to build a PC that they can't control. I know there have been some discussions on open hardware, but most if it was prior to the emergence of DRM as a real threat. In fact, Richard Stallman wrote an editorial in 1999 and said 'Because copying hardware is so hard, the question of whether we're allowed to do it is not vitally important.' DRM has perhaps changed that. Isn't the need for open hardware becoming critical? What is the status of the open hardware efforts?"
Open hardware? (Score:2)
Better specs on how to write drivers for the hardware sounds like a great idea, but not full hardware specs in the public domain for new hardware, that just won't work...
Re:Open hardware? (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny, you could say the same thing about software.
PS - I'm not bashing you, I agree 100%.
Re:Open hardware? (Score:4, Informative)
Which is, in my opinion, a good definition. Open specifications of hardware is needed for fair competition in the OS-market, as well as for higher quality software. Drivers based on reverse engineered specifications is obviously harder to write than if you had the specifications from the start.
Re:Open hardware? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's not as open as it was in the early 80's when IBM used to sell technical reference guides for PCs which contained the actual circuit diagrams. Those of us who worked at PC clone companies found these to be immensely useful.
You might argue that IBM ended up losing out to its competition in the PC market and shouldn't have done this. I believe, however, that the open nature of the PC eventually resulted in a total market sized hundreds of times larger than what would have resulted under IBM's total proprietary control. They probably made more profit in PCs, PC-based servers and PC software over the last 20 years than they ever would have if the system weren't open.
Their relative share of the pie was smaller, but the pie turned into a monster pie. Moreover, other clone companies pioneered the concept of the very profitable PC-based server. IBM stole this idea back and created their own lines of servers. The PC pie became richer, too.
There's even a control case to check this theory: witness the what happened when they tried to go back to a closed hardware system with the PS/2. It wasn't a poster child for success.
Re: [ot]. Open hardware? (Score:2)
yeah that kind of thing wouldnt fly here...
some things you might find interesting:
1953 -
Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii.
1966 -
U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are exposed when army scientists drop lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates.
it's a good thing we have laws here protecting us from the government. you know a guy died from the airborne germs spread in san francisco. when his son tried to sue the government, the judge informed him that he couldn't do it.
Re: [ot]. Open hardware? (Score:2)
while the free speech thing works out well here eventually, resposible parties are still not held accountable. so...
in the us: govt kills people --> responsible parties go free
in china: govt kills people --> responsible parties go free
not to mention the people we kill in other countries trying to control foreign governments. hell we even put the taliban in power.
you should really stop pretending my government
respects human rights
cares about people
isnt run by corporations
is any better than that of china
when you start a business in china you give half of your profits to the government. when you start one here you do the same until you are making enough to buy off the government. at least in china they dont pretend to be free.
Re: [ot]. Open hardware? (Score:2)
changes do indeed happen. look at the patriot act, where you can be held without a lawyer and tried under a military tribunal. rights? hell you dont have rights, you're a terrorist or have terrorist associations.
well now, i have friends from other countries. i gave them accounts on my computer. they use the accounts to do illegal things.. hell i just associated with a terrorist.
the patriot act redefined alot of terms which enables the government to easily extend the term terroist to someone using their free speech rights.
things are changing in china also. ask people who lived in shanghai 20 years ago what it's like now. they have kfc's and all sorts of happiness. actually china is getting better while the us is falling.
once again stop pretending how superior my government is. try getting information from alternative news sources. cnn is one of the greatest propaganda machines around.
Re:Open hardware? (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft: We would like to create a trusted computing platform. We will call it Palladium.
You: AHHHHHHH! How dare you control my computer and prevent me from running Linux!
The strength of Microsoft's operating systems are the huge amounts of software available and the ease of developing applications that are compatible across all versions of Windows. Microsoft will not restrict what software can run, they will only restrict how much damage software that you do not trust can do.
And I think it is absurd to imply that hardware manufacturers would ever restrict their hardware to only work with Microsoft. That is just bad business. Hardware manufacturers are out to make as much money as possible- not to consort with the evil empire in plans to control your content.
From everything I have read, Palladium will be a hardware feature that must be enabled by software. If the software does not enable it, thats ok. You just don't have the security features enabled.
Re:Open hardware? (Score:2, Insightful)
If software (the OS) can disable the security features, the whole scheme is just as strong as the OS.
So how would that protect windows users any better than is does now?
sure they would, arn't they do it now? (Score:2)
I guess that depends on how much of a kick-back er I mean discount on the OEM OS they get and whether they think that it'll offset any losses for sales. I'm afraid that hardware from civialized countries will be DRMed and hardware from uncivialized asian countries will be more open. Just like the DVD player from Korea that is easy to remove regonal code from. Then we'll have to depend on Customs agents to protect us.
so far (Score:5, Funny)
So far its closed, I'll let you know when I decide to void the warranty.
Status (Score:4, Insightful)
illegal
Really that is what the fight will be all about. Hardware will be made to defeat DRM, the only way it will not be is if it is all illegal.
Even if anti-DRM hardware is deemed illegal expect a black market in it that will put the alcohol black market during prohibition to shame.
Re:Status (Score:3, Insightful)
an audio cdrom player (discman, stereo deck)
what i do have:
two cdrom drives and about 250 audio cds.
since i like to listen whats on the cds every once and a while. out of convenience i've ripped all the cds to mp3 so that i can listen to them no matter where i'm at. if i go to a friends house for a bit, i download some music from my computer at home. i normally purchase a cd, rip it and stick it in a box. i never see the cd again.
before i started doing this, my discs used to get really scrached up. partially my fault, but this method of storage really works well for me. i have everything catalogged in a database which can search through using boolean logic.
i personally would pay more for hardware for this purpose. hell i already pay (or rather payed) more because i wanted scsi drives so i can rip, write, and play quake at the same time
while i'm probably in the minority wrt the rest of the populatin, i am one who would pay more.
Irrelavant. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Irrelavant. (Score:2, Insightful)
The existence of general purpose components is the key, at least for now. It is easy enough to obtain transducers and whatnot to read digital signals from inert media like DVDs, and if you can channel the signal to a computer and decrypt the data stream (sorry, but making it illegal to write a certain kind of program will only make criminals of programmers, it will not stop anyone) then the data stream escapes and free copies will be available.
It's a probably question of how the judges will interpret the laws. Would a judge ever convict on the evidence of possession of an unfettered general purpose computer?
In the long run, the rights holders may work out a tamper-proof closed distribution system (eg: distribute closed-box hardware free or at low end-user cost) and stop selling their product in the same way that books are sold. If the book model doesn't work for them, then they should invent a new model that doesn't give the user the opportunity to treat the product like a book. Then they will be able to go after those who break their closed distribution loops, legitimately. And we will go back to our legally sanctioned (at least in US law) videotape collections. :)
Re:Irrelavant. (Score:2)
That hasn't worked so well for DirecTV. Eventually maybe, and certainly with periods of hack-free as they changed cards, but not currently and not for any real significant time yet. When people find the security problems with these "tamper proof" boxes, it would pretty much end the game.
Re:Irrelavant. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not quite. Think about this for a moment....
In a world where all hardware has DRM and all operating systems enforce DRM, would I still be able to run Linux in vmWare? It won't be allowed to access that "impervious copyright content area" on my hard drive, but it won't need to either.
If so, why can't I share pirated DVD's with my friends through P2P running on my (virtual) Linux box, and watch ripped DVD's on my (virtual) TiVo? And DRM has accomplished nothing.
Or if I can't, then all the MPAA and RIAA and Microsoft Palladium assurances that I can still run whatever programs I want on my computer are pure bunk, and a DRM-enabled computer will both prevent you from accessing data which is copyrighted, but also prevent you from running unapproved programs on non-copyrighted data.
(It won't just be vmWare. On a bored day long ago, I once implemented a binary-to-7-segment decoder as an Excel spreadsheet, and had a flip-flop-based timing circuit implemented as a configuration of cells in Life. If these feats are possible as a lark, then creating a program to perform an illegal function using whatever tools we are
Isn't This Already Availible? (Score:2, Insightful)
The Jungle (Score:3, Interesting)
It reminds me of the consequences of the book "The Jungle," which led to the mandatory listing of all ingredients of a food on the label.
This would translate into basically letting you know what components of a product you have, but not necessarily how they work, with each other, or with you. And, you're allowed to test and research the product to make sure they aren't lying. With this, at least you'd know if there's DRM hardware in something you purchase. It could be more of a middle ground, and be some sort of comprimise. Sure, i'd rather have open-everything, and if you comprimise a little, they take a lot, but it's just a possibility.
Re:The Jungle (Score:2)
OpenPPC (Score:5, Informative)
To quote the site: "The immediate goal of the project is to enable interested parties to build inexpensive, PPC-based Linux boxes from IBM's reference plans. In the longer term, we hope to expand the open-source ideals expressed in the GPL to hardware projects, primarily motherboards."
Re:OpenPPC (Score:3, Informative)
Chip sets (Score:2)
Freeze! This is a hardware bust! (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, Palladium is of corporate origin, but you can be sure that they will lobby hard to promote it as the final solution to the issues vexing Sen. Hollings et al. This issue needs to be faced and not ignored in the hope it will go away and bother someone else.
I can see it now, I get busted for carrying a traffickable quantity of Z80 chips...
Xix.
This might be the wrong question (Score:3, Interesting)
There is plent of non-Intel(and friends) stuff out there already. Microsoft doesn't controll it in the slightest, and itd be too much of an undertaking for them to do it. I don't think ARM has much to lose from "just saying no" to microsoft.
Re:This might be the wrong question (Score:2)
Re:This might be the wrong question (Score:2)
You mean find a greedy corporation in a country that has the balls to stand up to our greedy corporations? Maybe say a country like China. One that doesn't give a rats *ss about our copyright laws?
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
Joe Sixpack in the good ol' US of A doesn't care about region-free DVD players, since if you're in Region 1, who cares? Playing non-region 1 content is pretty niche. If you go over to Europe though, you'll find a lot of people who are much more aware of DVD regions, since it has an appreciable impact on them. European consumers are much more aware of the issue and very often will buy players that make bypassing regions easy,
The same thing will happen over here when DRM starts directly impacting on the average consumer. If it has an impact on the average person, people will become aware of it, and they will spend their money on technology that minimises the impact of DRM. Of course, this is what legislation like the DMCA is supposed to prevent, but when there's a big enough profit motive, people will find ways around it (they've been doing it for years with other laws... like tax laws).
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Free market will solve everything" (Score:4, Insightful)
The first is the assumption of the perfectly informed consumer. There is no such thing as the perfectly informed consumer, a customer who is aware of which companies own which, which company behave ethically or distrubite products that do not conform the consumers ethical standards.
There is just too much information and it is just too complicated for even the concerned consumers to know it all. Most consumers dont even care if a company kills babies* so long as they get cheap gasoline (*i know of know such company).
the second flawed assumption is that the market can ever actually be free.
Governments can and do interfere. Governments usually* set minimum ethical standards and try to stop companies defrauding the investors or cheating their customers (* need i even say Enron, WorldCom etc?).
Governments are also one of the largest spenders in the market. The economies of many small towns are totally dependent on Goverment military spending, governmetn prison bugdets.
So government legislation and spending have a huge effect on the market place.
big businness calls for 'laissez faire' so they can make as much profit with the minimum obligation to show and morality or provide quality products.
Capitalism is not supposed to solve problems like this.
Democracy, and a goverment that represents the best interests of the majority of its people is supposed to sovle this.
Re:"Free market will solve everything" (Score:2)
What company? Do you have any sources?
Democracy, and a goverment that represents the best interests of the majority of its people is supposed to sovle this.
Very true. In fact, the lack of representation of the citizenry is what is causing the problem in the first place. Free market forces would probably be enough to promote both DRM and open hardware at the same time. Users who want to listen to $foo on their DRM Vaio have the option of buying the Sony. Those of us who want open hardware can buy something else, and not listen to $foo. I'd bet if Sony did make a DRM laptop and established a iSony service where you could listen to DRM Sony music, it might be a hit. OTOH, It might go the way of DiVX. I'd at least like to opportunity to choose.
Re:"Free market will solve everything" (Score:3, Interesting)
that democracy in America would last until the people
realized that they could vote themselves bread?
I guess now we know how long that is. About
150 years from 1783 to 1933.
Or you could argue that the union system broke
down 70 years before that, when Lincoln established
the American empire.
Re:"Free market will solve everything" (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope. Democracy has the same problems that you describe. The two most important that you brought up are: 1) people don't know or understand what's going on; and 2) people don't give a damn. It's the same thing, only applied to politics instead of economics.
Supposedly, we elect people to represent us so that they can carefully research and understand the issues for us since we don't have the time, inclination, or wisdom to do it ourselves. And what's happening? It's becoming Democracy! We hired these clowns to *lead* and they're following instead! And who are they following? A bunch of self-centered, ignorant, foolish idiots. You may know them as the American people. That includes private citizens, lobbying organizations, corporations, the works.
We're all ignorant on most issues and foolish even with the issues we're knowledgable about. And big business, in addition to being ignorant and foolish, is also selfish. C'mon Washington, where's the leadership?
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
In Kenneth Arrow's book "The Armchair Economist", he proposes that when capitalism fails to solve a problem that it apparently should, it's because a market is "missing". For instance to promote clean air, we should make somebody the "owner" of the atmosphere, and he or she should sell rights to pollute (presumably at very high prices). This sort of thing has been done with pollution and has had some good effect, where a state or municipal government acted as the atmosphere's owner.
So what needs to happen is somebody (probably some government) needs to be designated as the owner of some resource that gets sold at a high price in such a way that efficient allocation lines up with hardware remaining open. Maybe the thing that gets sold is the right to damage the intellectual commons by limiting the openness of hardware.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
That means that the government should work to keep the playing field level as it was intended to be. Patents should be offered for true innovation in the hardware world where no prior art existed and enforced properly when offered properly. Copyright while in existence should gauruntee the author the ability to make a profit and avoid having their works horribly abused, but the copyright protections should be limited while they exist and of limited duration, not extended perpetually.
As a side not, the dot com bubble was not capitalism failing, it was capitalism working beautifully coupled with idiot investors who overvalued entirely too much. The solid internet commpanies such as ebay thrive to this day, the ones with good prospects such as amazon.com and netflix.com are still around with time to prove themselves, and the weak one(who really wants to buy cheese graters or petfood online at a specialty website????) died as they should have. The only little glitch in the bubble was caused by mass stupidity and rampant overvaluing, which are not problems in the system itself.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
and I want a pony.
You're missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You're missing the point (Score:2)
DRM-enabled hardware, or a DRM-enabled VM... (which, of course, needs to have a debug mode for development purposes...)
Lots of open hardware (Score:5, Informative)
CPU cores, Ethernet MACs, complete SOC designs, etc. It's a great site, especially if you are into fpga development.
this isn't the same as creating open-software (Score:2)
Personally from what I have seen open-source SOFTWARE developers seriously lack resources. Just look at linux companies such as loki or VA software (which even dropped the linux part from it's name because of its reputaion), they have almost all failed. How would they expect to create hardware?
Also, if all hardware designs were free, there would be no competition or real business associated with it. How would video card makers compete with each other if they knew all their competitor's tricks? Prices would rise due to lack of competition.
Personally, I think in a perfect world open source hardware would be a good option, but realistically it can't be done. The open-source community lacks the resources, is too fragmented, and has no way of marketing the products competitively.
Re:this isn't the same as creating open-software (Score:5, Informative)
Irrelevent [Was: [not] the same as...software] (Score:2, Informative)
If someone wants to know how the hardware is made in intricate detail, take it apart yourself. Information is needed to verify that it should do what it's meant to do, and enough to allow developers to develop software that can use the hardware (after all, selling something one can't use is useless, go figure.).
Re:this isn't the same as creating open-software (Score:2)
> associated with it. How would video card makers compete with each other if they knew all
> their competitor's tricks? Prices would rise due to lack of competition.
Most of what you say makes sense, but this doesn't. If video card companies each knew each other's secrets, prices would plummet because all of the cards would be essentially equal and it would merely come down to the price they can be produced at. Of course, an economist would claim that this would then lead to decreased research-and-development and a slowing of technological innovation, which may be true. But it wouldn't lead to higher prices.
Re:this isn't the same as creating open-software (Score:4, Insightful)
So can hardware if you use Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) [vcc.com]. True, you won't generate a 20 THz processor with FPGA, but most hardware doesn't need power. If FPGA's became more common, you could download and share devices, rather than just downloading and sharing device drivers.
You would still need to buy the physical end, such as a virgin controllerless harddrive, or a simple plug to put an ethernet cord into. But if you could download the rest of the hardware, and if you could then plug it into a device like an FPGA, you could bypass almost any complaints people would have with hardware manufacturers.
More importantly, when you can download a set of instructions for programming hardware, you can then share these instructions. Then you gain all the known benefits of open source software.
When this will happen. (Score:2)
Until there is a wide spread need for a "Non DRM" hardware solution this will not happen. Right now the masses are ignorant, and sheepish. If ever we will all wake up and realize we don't want this, then demand may one day fill the void.
supply and demand, and right now no one is asking for this product. When they do it will surface, I just don't think that will ever happen in big enough numbers. You will end up shelling out very large amounts of money for a niche product.
Start stocking up on your pre-drm hard-drives you may have a market down the road.
LGPL version of SPARC CPU (Score:5, Informative)
The European Space Agency has made available [gaisler.com] VHDL for a CPU that implements the SPARC V8 instruction set. The VHDL is available under the GNU LGPL license. Granted, implementations of LEON are slow (25 MHz?) but it's totally freely available. You may need to buy a $99 license from SPARC International to actually sell any CPUs you make, but that's pretty cheap.
The SPARC instruction set is pretty simple. I don't imagine that a similar effort for x86 CPUs would be as simple or as quick.
Simputer keeps ticking (Score:5, Informative)
A brief introduction to the simputer to those who don't already know:
"The Simputer is a low cost portable alternative to PCs, by which the benefits of IT can reach the common man. "
The system software is available under GPL, and the hardware specs under SGPL, the full licensing info is here [simputer.org].
Re:Simputer keeps ticking (Score:2)
Q: What will the Simputer cost?
A: We expect the Simputer to cost about Rs 9000 when the volumes are upwards 100,000 units.
And for the more curious, that is 9000 Indian Rupee which translates to about $185 US Dollars.
money (Score:3, Insightful)
Travis
GPL for hardware specs (Score:2)
This might be be embraced even more quickly than the GPL... hardware manufacturers will be happy because, as mentioned, fab costs are still fairly high, so they can still make a profit from production and sales. Plus, they get to "leech" free hardware designs from the community, so their research costs go down. Finally, open specs means that competing manufacturers can fab and sell the same hardware, so prices go down on the consumer side. Sounds like a win all around!
Re:GPL for hardware specs (Score:2)
There's already something close to what you suggest, I believe. The simputer project's [simputer.org] one outcome is the SGPL [simputer.org] - Simputer General Public License:
"The SimputerTM General Public License (the SGPL) is based on the GNU General Public License but, due to the essential dissimilarities between the types of intellectual property being distributed, is significantly different. "
You answered your own question (Score:2)
You answered your own question in Stallman's quote. Do you think the ability to copy hardware, or produce it, has gotten easier since 1999? As other commenters have pointed out, open hardware would be illegal if DRM is mandated as the big companies hope. If it is only selectively implemented, then there will be producers of non-DRM hardware out there. And they will do quite well. As long as it is legal to have non-DRM hardware, we will have it. If it is illegal, then it won't matter. Open standards for something illegal don't really help anyone.
Hacked by Chinese (Score:2)
If you want a preview, google for VIA EPIA. It won't be a barn-burner speed wise and it probably won't play games well, but it will be quiet and will be more than enough to run Open Office.
How would it help? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are asking for companies to release their schematics and actual instructions for the fabrication of the chips, that wouldn't be likely (just like OSS and Free Software isn't likely) from big corporations without a *LOT* of pushing. Those represent thousands or millions of work hours, and a huge investment. Unlike releasing under GPL and OSS licenses, companies cannot reasonably expect hackers to improve on their work because of the cost of fabrication and development, and therefore wouldn't see any potential benefit. Consider the multi-billion transistor chipsets -- that's a lot of work to be putting out.
Of course, if there is a large group of EE talent that is willing to volunteer the hours building and re-engineering chips, it might work.
frob.
Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem will arise when you try to use your homebrew machine on the internet. There are two scenarios here.
The more likely scenario is that the big content suppliers and middlemen will pressure PC manufacturers into supplying only "DRM enabled" hardware to consumers; support for such hardware will be built into the Windows kernel and DMCA-protected against interference. What's more, a Palladium (or succeeding) web security system will interact with the trusted end-user hardware to enable net content access. In this scenario, users of noncompliant hardware will still be able to use their machines locally, and to access non-Palladium net content, but will be excluded from using the most popular OS and apps.
The less likely but still frighteningly probable scenario would involve the government (whichever government you happen to live under) passing a "net homeland security act" which would make it illegal to attach non-certified hardware to the internet. Needless to say, the certification process would be onerous and expensive for hobbyists, and would mandate compliance with DRM standards.
The latter may sound far-fetched, but consider that we already require cars to be certified as safe (and relatively non-polluting, in some states) before they're allowed to use public roads. The analogy is fairly direct.
Re:Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
The analogy is horrible. The Internet is not a public utility that can be compared to the roadways; no government, including that of the United States, has direct oversight of the Internet backbones.
In fact, every DRM-mandatory scenario is unlikely, because the two groups that don't want it are 1) those that sell the hardware and 2) those that buy the hardware.
Capitalism is on our side here -- if Non-Media Company X finds out that each of the desktop PCs they buy from now on is going to cost them $5 more because Media Company Y insists that DRM hardware be included on every electronic device to prevent home users from ripping DVDs to MP4, the DRM requirement is going to be quashed instantly.
There are a lot more Company X's in the world than Company Y's.
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
I wish this were true, but the problem is that the one group that does want it, namely the media companies, have disproportionate influence simply because they control the media and too many people are blindly influenced by what they see and hear in the media.
CBDTPA may have failed for now, but I have a sickening feeling that Sen. Hollings is going to keep leeching the CBDTPA provisions as amendments onto other bills until he finally succeeds.
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
Who needs it? (Score:2)
Well doc'd hardware is needed though, for sure. That is practical, to get new OSes on new hardware. However, outside of that, open hardware is a lot less pragmatically useful than open source. Most users and coders don't know how to make a change someone else's ugly C code that runs their computer, let alone have the knowledge to make any worthwhile chance. Having to deal with changes like this in BIOS or physical ones is even more far out.
I'm a coder, but I avoid using applications written in languages with a culture of insane layout and poor IDEs, like C, C++ and assembly. Opera is about the only app I use along these lines. Even if it were open source, I couldn't do much to it without spending way to much time for little result.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I prefer logical software development systems and environments, like Emacs and Squeak. If there's a small change I want to make in either of these environments, I can do so quite quickly. I do a lot of Smalltalk programming, granted which helps in this- but I was using Squeak as a customizable environment before I was very experienced in Smalltalk. Likewise, I'm no elisp guru, very far from it, but I can navigate around and find where to make my chance.
For a person who is interested in a sensible computer system that works with me (rather than me working for it), these sort of things are the real power of open source. Not do I not have to worry about company abandoning me by cancelling the product (as in closed-source s/w), I don't have to worry about whether or not some group of coders will change what I want. I may have the source to every app on a Linux system, but the time and energy spent to find out what to do and where to do it is prohibitive, such that I still would have to rely on someone who has invested all of that time+energy.
Hardware is a lot like this to me. I just want hardware that works- if open hardware makes better and cheaper hardware, so be it. But unless I see some practical application to my own usage environments, I can't say I'll get to excited about it.
Plenty of open hardware projects out there (Score:2, Insightful)
Problem will be when DRM is mandated in all digital hardware. In that case even 'DIY' hardware will have to include it, or be illegal.
Precedent (Score:2)
openhardware.net (Score:4, Informative)
" Open Hardware is engineers sharing their designs with each other through the disclosure of their schematics and software systems used on their designs. Do you remember the time when you purchased a circuit board, or computer, and the schematics came with it? I do..."
One example of Open-Source hardware is here (Score:2)
No, I don't work for them or have any other connection to them.
The Key to Open Hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the only reason why Apple survives, even thrives today, because they control the OS as well as the hardware.
Just because the design is closed doesn't mean, however, that the use and functionality of the system cannot be adjusted. You can slam as many drives, RAM, processor upgrades, and PCI cards in a desktop Mac as you would any other PC. Only the circuit designs remain under the control of one company.
In the case of Apple, it's a benevolent dictatorship at the moment, with a CEO who is outspoken on DRM issues.
The Intel world is problematic because Intel calls the shots. This is good because all companies must follow the designs that fit their processor. But it leaves us in that benevolent dictatorship again. Add the Microsoft layers and things are pro-DRM again.
Yet, take out the MS layers and Intel loses the need for most of its processors and cannot afford to make them.
So, it does seem that the only way to break into a true open hardware design is to break out of the traditional processor model. The PowerPC chip specs are openly available, but I don't see processor manufacturing becoming a home or OSS project. Too much capital and hardware.
Was it the Crusoe project that was trying to make a processor that ran any OS? Could that be the key? Was it cheaper?
Somehow, there's gotta be a way to make a cheaper processor.
Re:The Key to Open Hardware (Score:3, Informative)
IBM copied this model when they introduced the IBM PC in 1981, and it is largely why the PC market has been successful. However, though the PC was an open design, the clones generally aren't. All they do is maintain some base-level software compatability with the PC. You can't actually get schematics or BIOS listings for most (if not all) current PCs and motherboards. So the hardware is open in terms of bus interface, but not in any larger sense.
But when Apple decided to design and sell business computers, starting with the Apple III, the hardware was closed. Schemtics and hardware documentation were unavailable to customers. This trend continued with the Lisa and Macintosh.
At one point in the Macintosh era, Apple flirted briefly with open hardware (remember CHRP?), then went back to proprietary, undocumented hardware. Current Macintosh models are as proprietary and undocumented as ever. However, the release of Darwin source code mitigates this to some extent.
There are benefits to Apple to having closed hardware. They don't have to engineer for and test for as many different platforms and variations as Microsoft does. But this doesn't directly benefit the consumer.
To have a true open hardware platform, and the consumer benefits that would arise therefrom, we need more than just documented bus electrical specifications (e.g., PCI, AGP, USB). The actual details of the hardware design need to be public, such that a BIOS can be written as Free Software.
Note that even the microprocessor vendors are keeping secrets that impede this. For a while Intel kept the "Appendix H" documentation on the Pentium secret. More recently, it was discovered that some details of how to configure the cache of the Athlon were only available under NDA from AMD.
The whole "trusted computing" mantra of the TCPA and Palladium is offensive to me, because these initiatives do nothing to help me as a consumer have better trust in the machine -- if anything, they are hiding more of the operation of the machine from me.
I've been worried for about five years now that this would result in a very unpleasant change to the PC market. Instead of inexpensive, commodity hardware that can run either proprietary or Free Software, we may soon see a split market, in which the inexpensive hardware can only run proprietary software, and if you want to run Free Software, you have to buy much more expensive hardware.
This assumes that the manufacturing volumes for the open hardware would be considerably lower than for commodity hardware. Perhaps the xBSD and Linux operating systems are being widely enough adopted to prevent the prices of open (or mostly open) hardware from rising too terribly much. Only time will tell.
Of course, if legislation like the CBDTPA actually gets enacted, the situation will be much worse. Then rather than simply having to pay more money for open hardware, we would have to buy it on the black market. It is certainly comforting to know that our elected representatives in Washington are doing such a great job of protecting our freedoms.
Two different questions... (Score:3, Interesting)
When you look at hardware, the designing isn't the most expensive part, manufacturing is. (just like in software, support is the most expensive part :) So I could see a manufacturing company that was running some ultra cheap process try to make money - but there isn't much there. Plus, you have to do literally months of verification on each design before sending it to fab - I don't think most Open Source projects do that amount of testing...
The reality is that it still costs $1/4 million dollars to send a chip to Fab (rumored to cost a cool million for 0.1 micron). I don't know who is willing to put up that kinda money without some assurance the government isn't going to shoot them down half way through production.
FSF is indeed concerned about this issue (Score:5, Informative)
What concerns us most is the thin layer between hardware and software: items like the BIOS and flash ROM. That layer is ripe for DRM and other technologies. That issue is quite different from Stallman's essay mentioned in the post. This isn't an issue of Free (as in freedom) hardware, but is about a matter of that "thin layer" of software where DRM will likely dwell.
FSF is currently extremely short on resources, but we hope to put at least some force behind initiatives to create Free Software in this area. In some sense, it is the last frontier for freedom on our computers. Indeed, the only proprietary software code anywhere in my computer is that which lives in the BIOS. Before now, the issue was not so strategically significant, but the fact that DRM technologies may soon live in that very BIOS makes it more significant than ever.
If anyone has an interest and reverse engineering experience, and would like involved with working on the free BIOS projects, particularly for laptop devices, please contact me [mailto]. Also, please contact me if you would like to donate to a restricted fund for this effort, as we are considering setting one up if there is substantial interest.
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
For the rest of the world... (Score:2, Interesting)
DVD, Tivo, and modern games consoles have proven that no-one really cares if they have restricted control of a device in their own home, or if its proprietry. Just as long as they can see pretty colours, and drink their starbucks its all good.
Open hardware would be (Score:2)
SPARC (Score:4, Informative)
www.sparc.com [sparc.com]
From the SPARC site:
I've about had it (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe that reasoned political debate is a wonderful thing. I love talking politics with my friends, whether we agree or disagree. Those sorts of conversations always leave be with the sense that I've learned something new, or heard an opinion that I haven't heard before.
But Slashdot is not the place for reasoned political debate. More often than not, the people who post to Slashdot seem to lack even the most basic information about the topic at hand. Instead of reading and listening and learning about significant issues, the Slashdot readership prefers instead to just repeat the same old litanies: DMCA bad, RIAA bad, MPAA bad, DRM bad, MS bad, Linux good, EFF good, RMS good, capitalism = greed, government = corruption, et cetera, et cetera.
A year ago, the solution was easy: I just chose not to see any articles from the "Your Rights Online" section on the front page. Poof. Done.
Now, half the articles, more or less, make reference to one of the collection of alphabet soup I listed above.
I'm tired of this. I've been an active participant on Slashdot for a long time-- I don't remember precisely how long, but I've posted some 1,200 comments, and I maxed out my karma a long time ago-- but I'm just about ready to give it up. I'm just not finding that much on Slashdot that's worth reading any more.
I know this is off-topic-- and I'm sure I'll be moderated accordingly-- but I just felt like letting go with a rant. Don't follow this up here. Instead, if you want to reply at all, do so on my journal [slashdot.org].
Re:I've about had it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've about had it (Score:2)
No disrespect intended, but I do not give a rat's ass about any of your questions. You've missed my point, and that's unfortunate, but from the character of your comment I suspect that it's just as well.
Re:I've about had it (Score:2)
Re:I've about had it (Score:2)
Let's simplify -
Microsoft wants everyone to have machines with Paladium in them.
Machines with Paladium will not at the same time let me "run my own recompiled Linux" and "Be on the Web". The Web is Important, so to continue I may have to use an OS I have no control over.
If I have no control over my OS, I have no control over my machine. Who does?
On DRM -
I once heard that a people who will not rule themselves will need a tyrant to rule them.
If we can't stop *stealing* music and other digital media, then that tyrant becomes DRM.
Re:I've about had it (Score:3, Interesting)
The Windows operating system is extremely insecure. UNIX is a little better, because security was designed in at a much lower level, but it's still not perfect. Of course, in most environments security simply isn't necessary, but if you need to put a computer on the Internet without benefit of a firewall, it's suddenly very important.
Palladium is one proposal to improve the security of PCs by implementing cryptographic technology at the hardware layer. On its face, it's actually a pretty neat idea. But to see that, you have to think of it as a feature, and not a set of handcuffs.
I just wish we could have meaningful conversations about the pros and cons of the technology proposal itself, without immediately collapsing into "it's about control" and "it's about freedom." Because, contrary to popular Slashdot opinion, it's not always about freedom. Sometimes it's just about technology. Technology-- specifically, trying to be a Monday-morning quarterback on technology matters-- is interesting and fun. Politics is not. Is it too much to ask that Slashdot be a place where we can have conversations about technology that don't always become conversations about politics?
Re:I've about had it (Score:2)
Even though this is an obvious troll, I know that there are probably other people at least thinking the same thing, so I wish to spell out a few easily observable facts that would prevent stupid laments such as this.
I'm here to tell you that I have an answer to all of the problems that you listed above and I hope others that share your opinion take this advice to heart:
There are a fuckin' billion other web sites in existance, if you don't like this one then please leave and find another. And ESPECIALLY please do not bitch about it in the comments. It only makes you look like a complete and utter moron when you complain about how much a particular web site sucks yet can't seem to resist reading the stories or posting comments anyway.
And finally, Rob Malda, founder of Slashdot, has stated explicitly and repeatedly that Slashdot carries the stories that interest him and the editors that work for him. He does not cater to the interests of the readers other than providing a comment system, which was initially an added afterthought that happened to take off. You're perfectly free to go out and make your own Slashdot if you don't like this one. But you won't because you are yet another slashbot who by far prefers complaining to action.
Re:I've about had it (Score:2)
I'm tempted. And that's disappointing to me. Now, though, I see that my original comment has been moderated up to +4, which means there are at least two people out there who agree with what I said, or appreciated the fact that I said it. So now I'm less discouraged, but only slightly so. We'll see what happens.
You want the news for nerds - well, you better pay attention to the stuff that matters too.
Ah, but see, that's the problem. It only matters if it's real. You can't post an article talking about how DRM technology will lead to restrictions of choice in hardware products-- which is based on absolutely nothing and makes no sense at all-- and claim that it's an important social or political issue. That's not stuff that matters. That's stuff that's stupid.
Re:I've about had it (Score:5, Funny)
I asked Richard Stallman this... (Score:4, Interesting)
It is actually kind of depressing that even though we were all so well aware of what was coming we are still here, right up against the wall with so little progress to show.
P.S. Yes, I am aware of how the "M$" makes me look :-) [penny-arcade.com] the sad thing is I am a lot like that guy, except until I got my well paying IT job it was my parent's garage, not basement.
Re:I asked Richard Stallman this... (Score:2)
Open hardware, closed government. (Score:5, Informative)
Manufacturers are rightly scared of DRM for this reason. Anything too radical or obstrusive will kill sales. And what MPAA/RIAA wants is highly radical.
They are thus pursuing two avenues around the problem. The first is to make DRM a part of Windows [theregister.co.uk]. Since as we've observed most users (for a variety of reasons) are locked into Windows, they will have no choice but to (eventually) upgrade into DRM. There are some problems with this approach; they (correctly) don't trust Microsoft, either to do a good job or to look out for their interests, and there are those pesky "competitors." Will Apple play ball? Think about it. They'll have a powerful incentive not to, to try to use the Windows-DRM shock as an opportunity to gain marketshare. But of course, as has been well established in the past, Apple can be bought. That still leaves Linux. And that's a bit frightening, frankly, since you can't reliably control Linux, and the buzz on the street is that, someday, it might be what everyone uses.
That brings me to the second prong of this attack: the CBDTPA [eff.org], in its many forms, past and (undoubtedly) future. And that, basically, would make "Open Hardware" illegal. If past legislation is any guide, it would probably also make talking about how to build open hardware illegal.
So if you're considering spending time and energy getting involved in the design and (god forbid) manufacture of open hardware, please don't bother. If you're determined to contribute to the issue, you're needed in Washington.
Re:Open hardware, closed government. (Score:3, Insightful)
(nah, I'd actually get both)
You get into a good point (Score:2)
Of course, we all still have our regular VCRs and computers, but we can no longer rent tapes and buy CDs - content producers don't make them anymore. But hey, consumer choice and all that. Capitalism at work.
What happens then however is that it only takes a single person to arrange a jailbreak, and extract content from inside the box. Once converted to an open format, it is then endlessly distributed and enjoyed on conventional, non-black box hardware.
What we are discussing is the DVD in a nutshell, and RIAA is considering "secure CDs" along similar lines. DVDs are DRM embodied. The problem comes from the fact that DRM is inherently stupid, and is actually guaranteed to fail in a world where non-DRM devices are readily available. The issue we're considering when we talk about "open hardware" and "DRM hardware" is that, because of this problem with the black box, the MPAA/RIAA is now actively campaigning to make non-DRM hardware and software illegal.
Hence our discussion thus far. In the real world, of course, in absence of such awe-inspiringly hateful legislation, there is always an uneasy dance between the content producers and the consumer electronics manufacturers when considering new standards. Many excellent formats have fizzled and died for far smaller reasons than that they intentionally eliminate your fair use rights. The black box, on its own merits, will always lose. In a non-Orwellian scenario, the format transition could never occur, since during that transition, neither side (the content people or the electronics people) can jump without the other (or they risk a zero-sales incident) and there are too many parties for everyone to jump at once. Thus any transitional period would have both formats available, hence my point: consumers would have to choose, and as long as they have the choice, they won't choose DRM.
Thank you for your thought-provoking reply (Score:2)
First of all, I don't understand your response to my point. You say "(2) a DRM box will be more attractive to the general public than an open box." and you go on to say "I explained (2) in my previous post, so now to explain (1)..."
However, I feel as though I have sufficiently explained why it is not the case that the public would prefer DRM, and I not seen any specific responses to my arguments on that point. I think it's fairly clear that, all else being equal, the only attraction a DRM device could have over a non-DRM device is that there is no new content for the non-DRM device. And as I have explained, this is far from a trivial thing to accomplish.
Your other point rests on the unbreakability of the black box. I can, for instance, circumvent your hypothetical protections with hypothetical exploits: a motherboard tap anywhere inside the DA should be sufficient to recover bit-perfect digital data from your device. Think they can make the hardware too tamper proof for that to work? Now you have to prove your case. Remember, the content only needs to escape once, and you are up against the best; professional pirates in Asia, South America, and the West - bootleggers who have millions to spend on the best equipment and talent.
I am not aware of any evidence presented in a respectable setting that watermarks can be used in the way you describe. I would appreciate correction on that point if I am wrong, but remember, marks can be tiny, but they won't survive recompression. They can be big and redundant, but then they will be easy to spot and remove. Not that it matters. Watermarks won't even be useful for tracking down pirates, who if enforcement is aggressive will simply steal equipment/keys the way bank robbers steal cars.
This is ignoring the biggest problem in your plan, which is real-time encrypted digital video delivery to a mass-market audience. I would optimistically guess we are at least a decade away from this capability. Remember, we're talking about the last mile problem now. Let alone the expense.
Of course, ultimately we can agree to disagree about whether or not you can make your black box strong enough. Yet I feel extremely confident that you can't, now or in the future. If you have to put a variety of implementations of your hardware in hundreds of millions of hands, you will need a fundamental advance, nay, a paradigm shift, in fabrication technology for that to change.
Hardware HAS to be open. (Score:2)
IBM did the same with it's PC; you could get the actual circuit diagrams, as well as the assembly code listing of the BIOS. You know, of course, how much market share IBM has.
Then Apple got greedy with is totally closed Macintrash. And it got the resulting market share it deserves, thanks to a bunch of computer ignoramuses who are brainwashed into the apple religion.
PICs (Score:2, Funny)
Open Collector (Score:5, Informative)
gEDA [seul.org] is also a good project for Linux people interested in open hardware: they develop a GNU liscenced set of hardware design tools.
Just my bookmarks two cents on the topic.
Open hardware been there done that and still am (Score:4, Informative)
There are lots of other archives and examples, around the web. BUT, the catch is that this information is useless to most people. Unless you have a few hundred thousands of dollars to spend to make your own IC's the only option is microprocessors, FPGAs, CPLDs, etc. The design of custom IC's is not a consumer market and never will be untill someone comes out with a neat little Star Trek replicator. The closest thing to consumer IC's is MOSIS, which will make a few chips for you for around $10,000. The UW actually has two IC fabrication labs and only a few people can (and need to) make chips with them because the lithographic masks cost $30k each.
You can make your own processors if you really want, there are plenty of books that will teach you how to make your own Verilog MIPS processor. But, the software to take that design and turn it into a chip layout costs a couple hundred thousand dollars. But, if you want to build your own Pentium class processor, you're out of luck. Those designs are the property of whoever makes them, and with good reason. It costs millions of dollars to make and design these chips (don't forget just getting your chip to work is only 1/3 of the work, manufacturing it reliably is a far greater problem). There was a case several years ago against AMD (I believe) who suddenly came out with a memory design that was smaller than the industry standard. Funny thing was that another smaller company had come out with the design several months earlier... and guess what happened? They got a hold of the chips realized AMD had copied the design EXACTLY, except for a single reversed transistor (which didn't really change anything). Needless to say AMD lost a shit load of money and had to pay royalties. So, with respect to Stallman's rather silly statement the question is important and the answer is a resounding NO.
If you want to make your own circuits though, there are plenty of resources out there pcbexpress.com [slashdot.org] will take your PCB (printed circuit board) layouts and manufacture boards for under $100. And there's even free PCB design software out there (a lot of companies have their own for their services but everyone takes GERBER files - the industry standard for PCB layout). One popular free program is EAGLE which has Linux and Windows clients http://www.cadsoft.de/ [slashdot.org], which has pretty good quality - hey its free. Plus there are lots of other PCB programs on Freshmeat. There are plenty of resources out there to make your own boards and lots of people do, but open hardware will never be as simple as downloading a design and hitting a button (even open source software isn't even that easy) because electronics isn't that simple. You can solder things together perfectly and have your design not work, because of some small detail or it could work perfectly, which is what makes it so fun!
i fail to see a problem here (Score:2, Insightful)
ok so yeah, we may be stuck with p4's and athlon xps for a bit, but hell *someone* in asia will do something aobut it. they *always* do. your dvd player didn't have that nifty little code or hack to change regions by accident kids.
anyway...
do we know how motherboards work? (yes)
are we all going to suddenly forget this? (no)
then wtf is the problem?!
at first we may only be able to get these boards from limited mom and pop shops.. but soon enough, they'll be everywhere.
sheesh.
Open Slate Project (Score:2, Informative)
Little tangible progess so far, but I now use Linux on a laptop to gain practical experience.
The project is activly seeking partners!
Too hard core for me (Score:4, Funny)
It'd be nice if I could do this, but what's the point in OSH if you can't build your own?
Re:Closing of Hardware (Score:2)
Why don't you just drop Wintel next time around? You can get a Sun Blade 100 for around $1,000 right now. If you are using Linux now, migrating to Solaris wouldn't be too much of a challenge, assuming you let Sun install it for you. And, if you are really that attached to your Linux, I am pretty sure it will run there too, as well as on about a half-dozen other architectures.
Re:Ignorance is king (Score:2)
Re:For starters.. (Score:2)
Who cares. That doesn't change the fact that ATI adequately documents their hardware while NVidia does not. Open Source DRI drivers for the Radeon 8500 have existed for some time now. With NVidia, you're stuck with their binary crap drivers that only support Linux and Windoze. What if I run FreeBSD instead, eh? NVidia cards are totally worthless to me unless I want a GeForce4 Ti4600 that only does 2D. (And yes, there is DRI for BSD. See this page. [freebsd.org]). Check your facts before you go around calling people stupid next time.
Re:For starters.. (Score:2)
IIRC, Matrox refuses to document the TV Out because they were forced by the DVDCCA to license Macrovision in order to have DVD decoding onboard or some such nonsense. An open driver would allow users to disable Macrovision on the NTSC output and thus break Matrox's contract. Disgusting? You bet. Hopefully Matrox will not make similar mistakes with MPAA-sponsored, anti-consumer, third party tech in the future. Sorry I have no source. If anybody can confirm or correct me, please do.