Why FSF Endorsing PureOS Matters
puri.sm
puri.sm
While having FSF validation is indeed some kind of proof of due diligence, in the end what really matters is the trust that users place in the project itself in following their guidelines.
I do not have a particularly strong trust for the (modern) FSF, so their validation adds nothing, IMHO, in my trust in Purism.
Thread on how the Librem 5 is explicitly designed to hide proprietary blobs from the user in order to gain RYF certification (where having those blobs readily accessible would be strictly an improvement in freedom, as it would mean you are free to verify their contents, audit them, and potentially replace them with a free version if you develop one):
https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1040626210999431168
Make no mistake, Purism has gone quite far down the freedom marketing religion path laid down by the FSF. They no longer care whether you're free or not, they care that you believe you're free.
If you have blobs, stick them in /lib/firmware. Don't go hiding them in separate flash chips that I can't audit or rewrite just so you can slap the FSF's meaningless "the main CPU didn't touch any blobs (except the bootrom but we don't talk about that) so it doesn't have the digital cooties" rubber stamp on your device.
"We want users to be able to upgrade and control the software at as many levels as possible. If and when free software becomes available for use on a certain secondary processor, we will expect certified products to adopt it within a reasonable period of time. This can be done in the next model of the product, if there is a new model within a reasonable period of time. If this is not done, we will eventually withdraw the certification."
https://puri.sm/posts/librem5-solving-the-first-fsf-ryf-hurd...
> The SPI flash will be read only so the firmware blobs can’t be modified without the user knowing.
The post you link to is full of wishy-washy fluff, but does not answer the direct question that the user posed in the OP, about the DDR timing code flash being writable.
we do not institute any kind of write-lock or burnt fuses that would prevent the owner of the hardware from reflashing it with whatever firmware (new or otherwise) they choose.
In other words, you can modify the firmware on the Wi-Fi card or modem.
Concerning the RAM, I do not see any problem with that, since there is no proprietary code running after the booting. As FSF says, it can simply be considered as a part of "hardware" which is necessary for the start of the system.
Edit:
> can’t be modified without the user knowing
> without the user knowing
Did you actually read what you quoted?
That's CSO code for "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm just giving you a canned response about our principles with no technical details and hoping you don't pry further and prove me wrong".
He never explicitly addressed the RAM blob. If he knew it was flashable he would've outright said it to answer the question. But he did not.
> Concerning the RAM, I do not see any problem with that, since there is no proprietary code running after the booting. As FSF says, it can simply be considered as a part of "hardware" which is necessary for the start of the system.
Incorrect. The code is loaded in the DDR PHY. It then runs continuously. It is required for normal operation. This is because LPDDR requires continuous runtime re-training at its higher performance modes. What only runs on boot is the (dumb as hell) code they wrote to run on the Cortex-M4 as a workaround, because the FSF's ridiculous requirements forbid you not just from running proprietary code on the main CPU, but from touching proprietary code on the main CPU.
So Purism built code that runs on cpu A to run code they built that runs on cpu B to load a blob from external read-only memory C into cpu D, just so they could claim cpu A never got digital cooties from touching the blob.
Please appreciate the stupidity of this entire ordeal.
cpu B code: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/Cortex_M4/-/blob/master/ddr_l...
> read only
Means it can't be modified without the user knowing, and it also can't be modified with the user knowing.
Unless the Librem 5 literally has a DIP switch for "enable flashing RAM code", read only means read only, period. It means the write protect pin is tied to protected, or a set-only protect bit in the SPI flash config was flipped.
I have had a conversation with you about this before and I still don't see what the issue here is. Best case, that seems it might be covered under the secondary processor exception, worse case, the FSF would not endorse it. Since you have the ability to reverse engineer this and fix the situation once and for all, why not do it? What is the real problem here? If you are trying to get Purism to pay you for this work, I would suggest contacting them about that privately.
Because Purism selected components for the Librem 5 that will be manufactured for many years, it is more likely to get firmware updates than most smartphones. Because the drivers are all FOSS, they can be updated by the community, and some cases the manufacturer helps maintain the mainline Linux drivers, so timely updates are very likely. For example, NXP promises to sell its i.MX 8M Quad processor until at least Jan. 2028 and it helps maintain the mainline Linux driver. Likewise, Redpine Signals helps maintain the mainline driver for the RS9116 WiFi/BT and likely to keep manufacturing the chip for at least the next 5 years.
In contrast, the SoC used in a typical smartphone is only manufactured for 1-2 years and it typically only gets 2-3 years of support from the manufacturer, so the Librem 5 is more likely proprietary firmware updates than most smartphones.
As for the question of whether it is better to store the proprietary firmware in the /lib/firmware directory or in the component or in Flash chips on the motherboard, there are advantages and disadvantages, so you have to weight what is important. When firmware is stored and loaded from the /lib/firmware directory, it is easier to update and the user will automatically get the latest firmware when upgrading the software on the device. In contrast, the user has do a separate procedure to upgrade the firmware and many users are unlikely to do it, so any potential security holes in the firmware are less likely to be closed with updates. However, a lot of this depends on what Purism does in the future to push firmware updates, so we shouldn't automatically assume that the Librem 5 will be insecure. The benefit of not storing the firmware in /lib/firmware is because it makes the user more conscious of the proprietary blobs on the device, and the user can make a deliberate choice whether to install firmware updates or not, after reading the description of each update. Also, it is harder for the firmware to be hacked by a bad actor when it is stored in the component or a separate Flash chip, because it requires a separate procedure to flash the firmware, so it can be argued that it is more secure. Another benefit is that system updates can be offered without including any proprietary files, so there are no restrictions on how they are distributed and installed.
In terms of promoting software freedom, I don't know of any cellular modems or any GNSS with FOSS firmware. There were only two WiFi/BT model series whose firmware was reverse engineered by the community but they never got past the experimental state and are now hopelessly outdated since they were 802.11b/g devices. There are some ath9k 802.11n models that required no firmware, but they have poor range and are energy inefficient and require proprietary firmware for the Bluetooth.
In other words, there is no realistic way to make a modern computing device without proprietary firmware, and the only hope is to pressure the manufacturers to release code or documentation for its firmware, but the modern patent situation with wireless communications makes that extremely unlikely to happen. However, the FSF's insistence on trying to separate the proprietary firmware and not let it be executed on the main CPU cores does draw public attention to the problem and show the component manufacturers that there is public demand for free firmware. When companies like Purism go through extreme steps to avoid executing DDR timing code on the main CPU cores, by adding a separate SPI Flash chip to the board to hold the blob and not using the Cortex-M4 core for any other purpose but to execute that blob, it sends a message to NXP that its customers really hate that proprietary blob and it should be eliminated. In contrast, a company that stick that blob in the main Linux file system tells NXP that its customers don't care about that blob and there is no pressure for NXP to eliminate it in future chips. The value of buying RYF products like the Librem 5, RaptorCS computers and Lulzbot is that it is creating a public statement that consumers care about not having proprietary blobs, and that the hardware industry should cater to that crowd. What Purism is doing value in promoting a public message and it is based on a long-term strategy to pressure the industry to free its firmware, whereas the people who criticize it have no strategy for ever achieving change. If they have an alternative strategy for how to free the firmware, I would love to hear it.
The more important point is that Purism selected components from hardware companies that are more willing to collaborate with the community and listen to Purism's requests, so there is more possibility of driving change up the supply chain. Purism paid Redpine Signals to modify its firmware so it could meet the RYF criteria and NXP engineers work with the community on the mainline Linux driver for the i.MX 8M, so it is possible to influence these component suppliers.
Let me just start by saying that trust is a very personal feeling. We give trust to others based on criteria that are different. I completely understand that my points listed below are not relevant trust indicators for others.
That being said, I have 2 main mistrust issues with FSF:
1) Leadership
I had various occasions to interact with RSM over the years, in various contexts. I do not have a fond memory of those interactions.
- I remember someone which is very difficult to have a real conversation with. Very childish and binary in his view of the world. Prompt to not listen to arguments, talking louder than others, turning arguments into jokes, etc.
- I worked and know plenty of people who worked with him in various academic labs where he's been invited to give talks or work on subjects. The same complaints emerged all the time: he would grossly hit on female PhD students (just enough to make them uncomfortable), always tried to be hosted by someone and would not even shower there, very rarely participate in the big picture of why he was invited (e.g. He would lock himself in a room for 2 days straight to fix some esoteric emacs bug on an archaic platform, instead of just organizing seminars on free software and participate in discussions), he would act in very narcissistic ways (e.g. After proposing to go to a restaurant, he would then propose - and insist grossly - to pay the bill with his autograph on a printed copy of emacs source code). He would constantly rant on closed source computers and cell phones, but will gladly borrow anyone's phone to make international calls. I stop here because I just have too much random echos of his not-so-pleasant behavior.
Overall most of my personal interactions with RSM, as well as friend's recollections picture him as gross, childish, and narcissistic.
Now RSM himself is not the FSF as a whole, but I have a hard time trusting an organization that is so centered around a single individual which embodies traits that I do not appreciate.
2) The organization members
I did not have direct relation with other FSF members, but I have been contributor to projects where the FSF intervened (or tried to) in the governance.
Most of the time, the FSF members were never contributors to the projects. Yet they were the one trying to dictate the tone and direction, and act like they owned the projects based on their moral high ground.
This has led me to associate FSF members as some kind of a self proclaimed elite class of zealots, exempt of technical knowledge and actual contributions, but still willing to be heard.
This goes directly against my view of governance of open source projects, in which I believe the actual contributors should be ones to set the tone and direction of the project, because they are the one building it.
---
Again, all this is mainly personal feelings, so I don't want to look like I'm trying to influence others into distrusting FSF.
I understand that my interactions with RSM were in a certain context and that he maybe could be a very pleasant person in a different situation. And I also understand that my interactions with other FSF members were limited to the projects I contributed to, and there may be thousands of others where they were helping and constructive.
My main problem with the FSF has been more in terms of poor strategy in terms of how it engages with the software and hardware industry, rather than the philosophical vision.
As for RMS, every interaction I have had with him.has been rough at best. I mean he is definetly right about the issues of software but him as a person can be very difficult at the best of times.
This page has stayed the same: https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria
However, I raised a question about how to interpret the RYF criteria with regard to proprietary firmware updates, and I'm hoping the FSF will clarify the RFY criteria in a way that allows proprietary firmware updates for components that don't execute on the main CPU cores. See: https://forums.puri.sm/t/does-respects-your-freedom-certific...
Though that thing about the FSFE office in Germany yesterday... Hopefully it's just a dude and the office he runs rather than the organization as a whole.
If anything, slightly grumpy old school guys (again, alleged) are much better at rejecting corporate influence than the new people whose politics are literally bankrolled by corporations.
I'm not associated with FSF specifically, but as a card-carrying grumpy old-schooler, I object to your vaguely-defamatory characterization of them[0] as "slightly" and "alleged".
Edit: 0: RMS et al, that is, not the business linux people.
(I think hacker culture in general is great, but, to use an analogy, there's a buggy implementation going 'round.)
It's not just an FSFE problem. It's also not intrinsic to hacker culture in any way; it just tags along, causing problems.
What are you referring to?
https://puri.sm/posts/gaming-that-respects-you/
> The Librem 5 features high quality, free games that respect you. Play 2D and 3D games without ads, without in-app purchases, and without tracking.
Don't expect much uptake from game studios, when the selling point of the platform is not to pay for games.
instead of accepting this as a fact of life, it should definitely be discussed and debated. What are good reasons for not having this right by default ?
For instance, Star Wars fans have made the despecialized edition from footage from the various movie - the result is pretty good. People remix music all the time; there have been plenty of initiatives over the years to provide songs as separated tracks to allow for more advanced remixes. etc etc...
The good reason is that someone or some company paid for creating all those hundreds of hours of footage, so they get the first and final say over who gets to view and/or use it.
there is nothing obvious in that deduction.
For cinema for instance a loooot of the money that serves into making movies come directly from taxpayer money - a figure I can find in the US is 1.5 billion $ of tax per year for instance in one occurence : https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/us/when-hollywood-comes-t... - and let's not get started about public tv which is pretty much mostly public funds.
Likewise for my country, France - only a minority of money invested in movies comes directly from private pockets: https://i.f1g.fr/media/figaro/704x319_cropupscale/2019/03/19...
Thank you for pointing this stuff out.
I don't quite get your point either. Are you implying you would like ownership to be transfered from your tax money to whatever is created afterward with that money?
Would you feel entitled to ask for reports of how your neighbor spends his unemployment grant, because that's partly paid with your tax money?
I'd rather have no notion of private ownership of ideas, knowledge and cultural goods at all.
> Would you feel entitled to ask for reports of how your neighbor spends his unemployment grant, because that's partly paid with your tax money?
I don't think it's really meaningful to compare something that allows human beings to (barely) stay alive, to the benefit of for-profit corporations.
But it is: The concept of "private property" is pervasive and deeply ingrained in modern Western civilization. You should have very, very good ethical and practical reasons for why this should be changed.
Let me try a different angle: If you put a two-minute video of an albatross gliding through the air on Youtube, should viewers of your video also have the right to see the other five hours of your holiday footage?
No, this has nothing to do with privacy. The context was "When you buy a DVD, you don't expect hundreds of hours of unedited footage to come along with the film so you can cut together your own version." [1] jcelerier argued that consumers of a movie should have the right to receive all unpublished footage, I argued against that. In my analogy, the "buying a DVD" part is viewing the albatros-video, and the unedited, unpublished footage is the unedited, unpublished footage.
I think it should be read that way. You are not conflating copyright and privacy, you are conflating scopes of content production (the licensed work vs the whole work of the artist).
In your example, the topic of the licensed video is the albatross, not the artist holidays. That clarification being made, there's probably some truth in the privacy issue (you brought that example for a reason): one must make a distinction between works of fiction and other works : reporting, biography, and perhaps other kinds. Games are works of fiction, just like movies and music, while someone's holidays isn't. Maybe one may see that as another form of scoping.
Ahh, I think I see the source of the confusion: in my analogy, the two-minute albatross video is cut and edited from the five-hour holiday footage. Sorry, that was my fault for being unclear.
For this holiday video, it was taken with the intent to -- privately -- document someone's holiday. Incidentally, the person taking the video happened to find a two-minute segment that they thought might be interesting to others, and they were comfortable giving away (because that portion of the video didn't intrude on their privacy).
The point I'm making here is that situations are different. Situations have nuance. You can't just presume equivalence and throw an argument in someone's face along the lines of "if you want someone to do X then you have to be comfortable with Y". Because no, you don't, and it's not logically inconsistent to hold that view.
(For the record, I don't think the studio should be required to give you all their unpolished, pre-cut footage. But I also don't think it's contradictory to imagine a world where that was the norm, but it was not the norm to expect people to post their entire holiday video when they just want to post a short segment.)
No one denies that whoever creates something has the right to dispose of it however they wish.
Having the legal right to annoy your own customers is not a good reason to annoy your own customers.
The question was why couldn't the material be packaged up in any other ways? What's the "good reason" it can't be? Does it kill any babies?
Re-read the original question by jcerelier, who explicitly asked why consumers don't have the right to view all the uncut footage: "What are good reasons for not having this right by default ?" [1]
> No one denies that whoever creates something has the right to dispose of it however they wish.
That's not correct. From another comment: "I'd rather have no notion of private ownership of ideas, knowledge and cultural goods at all." [2]
> What's the "good reason" it can't be? Does it kill any babies?
That's a really stupid argument to make. What's the "good reason" you don't send me 100 Euros? Would it kill any babies?
The people who made the movie have all the rights to it and then they make some DVDs and sell them. They only sold what's on the DVDs. They didn't sell the other stuff, so people don't have a right to that stuff.
Now, that is not to say that the products couldn't be different in the future. It might turn out that movies which include a footage "parts kit" do better in the market place, so much more so that it becomes the normal way of doing business and is what is the ordinary and expected product at the ordinary price. But there's no reason to expect we have any particular rights to stuff other people did, or that they can't carefully parcel out the rights at prices that they set.
Getting tired of such free use of the word “right”. [EDIT: see bottom of this post!]
I will assume you’re not from the US, or are using hyperbole when you use the term “right”. Here in the USA our rights are clearly defined in the Constitution & Bill of Rights and they have a special quality: Our military and politicians literally swear not to defend King or country, but the Constitution, which represents a set of rights no human is allowed to abridge.
Rights are things we send our sons and daughters to die for in war.
So maybe you mean something a bit less dramatic?
EDIT: After my bloviating I reversed my position based on something the parent posted regarding government subsidies. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25506982
yes
I dabble in game design and the plan is making the game code open/libre (not the assets or trademarks though) after some time passes (years or maybe even decades, depending on the success) so others can learn from it, extend it and maybe even sell it is quite a draw for me.
Some assets are code (procedural content, for example) though, how do you feel about those?
Also, one thing I've noticed is that for many ostensibly open source game code releases where assets are withheld, often no placeholder assets are provided either, without which the code sometimes can't be built, or if built can't be run or tested, which can present a significant barrier to the use or reuse of the code. All the more so when the original assets are in some idiosyncratic, non-standard, and possibly even undocumented, format.
> Some assets are code (procedural content, for example) though, how do you feel about those?
Code is code, if it produces output, it is owned by the user :) (assuming the "code" doesn't produce copyrighted content).
EDIT: Why do I treat code differently from assets? I have no clue tbh, but probably has to do with I can do code and thus can give it away, and can't do assets and thus can't.
Right, I'm thinking specifically of code like shaders that do produce copyrighted content.
> EDIT: Why do I treat code differently from assets? I have no clue tbh, but probably has to do with I can do code and thus can give it away, and can't do assets and thus can't.
I'll not claim to speak for your reasons, but in general the motivation seems to be defense of things like trademark/trade dress or restrictive franchise licensing and adaptations to other media.
Eg. If Doom's assets were entirely free of any and all restrictions, anyone could have produced a Doom movie (including an inevitable Rule 34 version), not to mention sequelae.
What do you mean by this exactly? What I meant was "code" that produces a Disney movie for example.
> anyone could have produced a Doom movie
This would actually be great if you ask me! What I fear the most is someone renaming the project and selling it as their own with no added value.
> What do you mean by this exactly?
Sorry for the delayed reply.
Procedural content is generally produced by code that generates somewhat randomized 'assets' on the fly, whether it is a generated map of game locations, a generated planetary system, generated alien plant & creatures, buildings and cities, people and clothing, weapon/robot/vehicle designs, etc.
The generating code can be just code, or sometimes the code recombines existing assets. In the latter case omitting the assets is sufficient for the purposes of distinguishing assets from code (without the assets in the first place, there is nothing for the code to recombine).
But the former case, where assets are procedurally generated (materials, textures, models, bump maps, locations, etc.) from code alone, is the more interesting one.
It is fairly clear that art assets being generated on-demand likely embody a game-specific look and feel that is subject to the usual copyright, trademark and trade dress issues even though any specific image doesn't exist ahead of time.
So if there is code that generates (within constraints) randomized textures used in the game, how do you see that code and the resulting assets being licensed?
Perhaps the code itself is treated like all the other code in the game, but the settings data that steers the generating code toward a particular 'look' is separated out and treated as an asset?
https://youtu.be/fbJdS-nLjQY?t=28
(WOLF3D, not Doom, and IIRC it was licensed from id, but still relevant I think)
This is something I'd have no problem with :)
NSFW review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNvQYiM6bw
There’s a reason games have (popular) modding cultures, where other mediums do not, and that same reason is why it is viable/reasonable for games to be libre.
That most games are treated and developed like movies, rather than like simulations, is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding by the game designers/developers.
Ok, now I'm offended.
When I buy a DVD, I can view it with my own software or on a dedicated device that is not a general purpose computer or connected to the internet.
I suspect that most people who try to carve out an exception for games are just rationalizing. They prefer free software, but don't want to give up their games. Then they often poo-poo someone for not wanting to give up $OtherPropreitaryApp.
The game content doesn't need to be libre, but the game engine benefits from it.
If it wasn't for Carmack it wouldn't ever have happened.
I do not think it is guaranteed. But there are no guarantees. Even Nintendo has had misses.
The point of free software isn't just for the companies but also for the end users.
Also, concerns about tracking and privacy.
A lot of games will be lost due to DRM like Starforce, where even running then under a VM and a crack is not granted gameplay.
OTOH, on libre games with propietary data, a lot of then are having lots of earnings with GOG and for example, ScummVM and open engines running unnoficially under Linux and OSX.
With ScummVM you can buy lots of adventures and now even some games like the ones from the Ultima saga up to VI are perfectly playable, (and integrating Exult for VII is not a big task). In a near future, engines like Little Big Adventure will be playable under ScummVM.
All that said, the market compensation for fully FOSS games (assets+code) is a drop in the bucket compared to proprietary games.
I pay tons of money on games, on many platforms. But ads/tracking/in-app purchases? That sounds like an awful mess.
Did you know that King with their Candy Crush and other saga games almost double the operating income of Blizzard with all their legendary lineup? [1].
1. https://www.investopedia.com/how-activision-blizzard-makes-m...
Addendum: People looking at "free" and thinking "you don't have to pay for them!" makes me feel both old and pessimistic.
Is the "free as in speech, not as in beer" thing just a byline at this point? I remember reading about it and being pretty excited by the concept ~15 years ago, and it seems that it was pretty common in the software industry to understand the distinction; especially in the context of the FSF.
I don't see where they are discouraging paying for games?
I do see them discouraging insidious tracking, advertisements masquerading as gameplay, and lottery systems designed to enrich the game developer at the expense of the actual gamer.
"Free" is such an unfortunate word, because in other languages it only means "gratis". "Libre", as in LibreOffice, is better.
> The Librem 5 features high quality, free games that respect you.
Is that so bad?
There are certainly a lot of loot box patterns that are unseemly, but I'm not sure I understand a wholesale prohibition of in-app purchases entirely.
Also, Minetest with the Dreamworld MOD lacks nothing from Minecraft.
Being opensource and easy to extend gives it an enormous developer base.
But I think HN is the place to discuss nuances such as these:
Firstly, it's very unclear to me how Purism and the FSF reconcile the FSF criteria regarding 'Nonfree Firmware' with the blobs on the device. It's also unclear to me what the distinction is between this part of the criteria and the RYF certification.
https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria
Furthermore, the FSF's criteria regarding non-free firmware seems problematic, and it directly affects the Librem. Purism has been working with the FSF in pursuit of the RYF certification, and all of the responses I've found seem to be somewhat evasive of the fact that it may be the Librem will not get firmware updates, and that this is in accordance with RYF criteria.
https://forums.puri.sm/t/does-respects-your-freedom-certific...
The response from the CSO almost confirms this.
I find a lack of firmware updates to be possibly more of a concern than whether or not only my application CPU is running only free software.
What the FSF and company define as 'software' also still seems to be problematic.
Why are you suggesting that one can't change the firmware? In your link, Purism CSO explicitly said you would be able to do it:
> I would expect that we would document the process in our Librem 5 developer docs at some point, when it’s relevant (such as when there’s an update to apply).
They have yet to explicitly state in any way that they will ensure firmware receives security updates.
Ya, you are confused.
The PureOS endorsement is about a distro you can download and put on a computer (the distro doesn't include a bios or related firmware).
RYF is about all the software that comes on a computer/device, and the website you use to buy it, it's much more expansive.
So, Purism's computers are not RYF certified, but they come with a distro that is fully free (the disto does not include some nonfree firmware that comes on Purism's computers).
I love this page: https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html
"Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system. However, Debian also maintains a repository of nonfree software."
So shipping free software isn't even enough for admission to the FSFs special club. Right. I've stopped listening to anything Stallman says.
I disagree. They have a moral value system, and they adhere to it. Just like (say) Roman Catholicism.
The FSF's point of view is that by providing repositories (which make installing a program a single command-line or a few GUI-clicks away) that's not functionally different from that being a part of the operating system. So providing repositories of nonfree software is functionally equivalent to including that software in the OS itself.
And to have software freedom, then all the software on a machine must respect the user's freedom; i.e. be free software.
In other news, water is wet.
More seriously, yeah there's a place for ideological organizations that broadcast their philosophy and won't budge when moneyed interests try to push them around. But such organizations also tend to be difficult to work with if you just want to get stuff done.
> So shipping free software isn't even enough for admission to the FSFs special club.
If you're free is designed to "lead others to make use of" nonfree software, then of course not: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
What is a "complete OS"? You always need to install some new packages.
Until the thing just plain stopped working on me all of a sudden, it was great.