Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/31225 )
Change subject: src/mainboard/lenovo/g505s/Kconfig: disable DRIVERS_INTEL_WIFI by default ......................................................................
Patch Set 2:
(1 comment)
Patch Set 2:
(1 comment)
Patch Set 2: Code-Review-1
If there is any chance that this device hosts such a card, it should default to `y`, IMHO.
As said at the commit message, this chance is very very small because all G505S shipped without Intel cards preinstalled, people couldn't install them because of the whitelist while there was a proprietary UEFI,
It doesn't matter how small the chance is. It can hurt if the option is set to `n` falsely. But can't if set to `y`.
and those who upgraded to coreboot are security conscious enough to choose ath9k over intel.
You are confusing software freedom with security.
I know a lot of coreboot+G505S owners, but none of them have Intel WiFi installed. I am confident that we should not select a configuration if 99.9% or even 100% of coreboot+G505S users will not ever need it. The remaining 0%-0.1% could enable this configuration at Generic Drivers : it is still there, just disabled by default.
Anybody is already free to disable it if they don't need it.
https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/31225/2//COMMIT_MSG Commit Message:
https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/31225/2//COMMIT_MSG@13 PS2, Line 13: have a much better software freedom status and are the preferred choice.
No non-free firmware is required to operate Atheros ath9k cards, and this is why many of these cards […]
Um, I know that page... the only reference it quotes seems to predate the chips in question by two years. It's nuts. And it's not a reliable source anyway. If Atheros ever publishes a list of chips which (don't) have firware, I would trust it (if the selection of chips with firmware seems reasonable).
Generally, don't trust wikis. Especially not about the winner of a popularity contest, which ath9k clearly is.
Btw. the current FSF-endorsement can only have a negative impact on free firmware, IMHO. They reward those that hide their firmware dee- pest and/or ensure that bugs are never fixed (everything in a ROM seems to be endorsed). But punish those that a least try to have a secured update mechanism. But you need that update mechanism for free firmware... They also endorse Linux distributions that push proprietary parts into the firmware. If you ask me, the FSF is accidentally hostile to free firmware, so better don't try to use them as an argument here.