Talk:Firmware

message: Can someone explain to me what is meant by "A hardware configuration is usually used to represent the software."  The line doesn't really make sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.233 (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows. Maybe it was in fact meant the other way round: a hardware configuration is represented by data contained in the firmware (which is software). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.102.2.243 (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2005 (UTC)

text: Makes sense to me. A 'hardware configuration' (as in some physical construct) is used to represent software, a form of information. ex. the hardware configuration is the flash chip and the software is the firmware it contains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.250.198 (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2005 (UTC)

text: The offending sentence appears no longer to be in the article. Guy Harris (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: "A typical vision of a computer architecture as a series of abstraction layers: hardware, firmware, assembler, kernel, operating system and applications"
: Assembler is horribly misplaced. Assembler is _an application_ which produces executable programs (by reading, parsing and converting human-readable source assembler program into machine code). So in this picture assembler sits among applications.
: If picture author meant "assembler CODE", then it is also misplased (should be removed altogether) - ALL machine code can be called "assembler code" in a broad sense in the term (as opposed to "high-level languages"). Computer cannot execute anything else. Firmware is machine code. Kernel is machine code. OS is machine code. Etc... The difference is that firmware is commonly writted _directly_ in assembler language, whereas most of the kernel, OS, and apps is written in C, er, high-level languages, and then compiled into assembler (optionally) and then into machine code.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.171 (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture no longer appears to be in the article. Guy Harris (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture is wrong ? 

message: Does the name "firmware" imply that it's "harder" than regular software but not as "hard" as hardware?  Since it's sorta inbetween - software that's built right into the hardware?...  Just curious - thought maybe there should be something about how it got it's name... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.147.182 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so. Supposedly firmware is somewhere in between hardware and software where the distinction between them is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.250.198 (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  where did the name "firmware" come from ? 

message: Doesn't the link to 'Embedded Systems' when referring to the embedded nature of the firmware seem erroneous? The reference is embedded as in contained not as in an embedded computer system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.250.198 (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Embedded systems"? 

message: : As firmware is a generic term used to encapsulate a concept, the copyright in any particular firmware is variable and decoding it will be a matter specific to that firmware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.0.30 (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a lawyer in the United States either, but I'm preparing to be. I know you wrote this a long time ago, but there have been significant changes to Copyright and Patent Law. While the full effects of the Google v. Oracle decision on firmware copyrights are unclear to me, I think most lawyers and judges in the United States would agree that the Alice v. CLS decision(https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf) significantly changed the eligibility standards for software in ways that firmware is far more likely to satisfy than higher-level, user-directed software. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm referring to patent-eligibility standards. Sorry for the lack of clarity in the above reply. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  can anyone give me some insight as to copyrights within the firmware? 

message: Although it's not under the 'external links' headline, there is a "Tanenbaum 79" link under the 'computer architecture' diagram that doesn't go anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.87.94 (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links  

message: The first line reads:
"In computing, firmware is software that is embedded in a hardware device"
But these days, firmware can contain a configuration for an FPGA chip in the embedded device.  It could also contain other configuration information.
FPGA configuration data could potentially be > 1MB, hence a significant part of the firmware.  This configuration is definitely not considered software.  We could change the first line to:
"In computing, firmware is software or configuration information that is embedded in a hardware device"
Then add an item to the examples section about FPGAs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.98.2 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual hijacking of words: The term software (for data) was coined in order to contrast to the old term hardware (for devices), based on the simple observation that data can be changed much more easily than devices can (with firmware "in between"). Some data is intended to be interpreted as program code (i.e. executed), some describe data structures manipulated by program code, others describe data structures used to configure hardware (such as in an FPGA), etc etc. 83.255.39.61 (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firmware is not only software 

message: I wikified the page as you guys asked. I probably did a horrible job, though- Sorry if I did it wrong. 68.64.175.222 18:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikifi'd 

message: This has been mentioned a couple of times in the discussion: what's with the image? Assembler is not between Kernel and Firmware/Hardware.... Kernel doesn't need to be assembled, it is already binary. Also, why are Kernel and OS so different? They share most of their functionality. I think the image should be remade or removed. I will remove the image in a couple of days if there is no opposition, and if possible, remake it without the mistakes. --DFRussia 23:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody appears to have removed the offending image. Guy Harris (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Image 

message: I have a wii, a 360 and a DS and I have seen a psp and a ps3 in action during firmware upgrades. As far as I can tell the wii and 360 don't use firmwares in the same sense as the other consoles. Both the wii and the 360 employ an operating system installed on the internal memory or hard disc respectively. One can deduct this fact from the time it takes to download the update and install. In case of the wii and 360 this takes mere seconds. On the ps3, psp and DS this takes a couple of minutes, due to the complete firmware flash being rewritten.
84.193.179.126 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wii and Xbox 360 

message: Please give some more background about firmware in 90s remote controls, as suggested in the article. I currently doubt this fact. --Abdull (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doubt what? That a remote contains microcode and machine code? 83.255.39.89 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I had wondered about that photo as well.  It doesn't seem to be a very clear example of a firmware controlled device anyway; perhaps a Linksys router or a CHDK camera would be a better poster-child for firmware. -- Autopilot (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  A simple remote is familar to everyone and contains at least one level of firmware (they actually often contain at least two: microcode and machine code). A remote is therefore a perfect ubiquitous example of a firmware controlled device. 83.255.39.89 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firmware and remote control 

message: The IEEE definition might say "read-only", but a lot of firmware is stored in read-mostly media/flash. Guy Harris (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just read-only memory 

message: can you please explain how Firmware is important for an electronics devices like digital energy meter? How to undersatnd in a better way as how firmware is different from software?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.50.58 (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firmware 

message: The security risks section cites only one person calling for open source firmware due to the perception of increased security. Doesn't strike me as particularly NPOV.--108.85.148.69 (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As-is,  section raises a few eyebrows; however, content of the section is pretty much fine and reflects the true state of things, though we'd need more references and a further expansion so there's no doubt about the WP:NPOV. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security Risks section 

message: I need help editing the History section. I keep making a formatting error, and I need help fixing it. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , how can I help? ~Kvng (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Whenever I try to edit to provide a clearer explanation of firmware in its historical context, the font and background keep changing. You can see my edits in the history of the article, and you can see what happened when I tried to edit. I'm trying to explain that the concept of firmware developed when it became clear that computers sometimes had to run programs automatically to make relatively easy for humans to use. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

text: , Whenever I try to edit to provide a clearer explanation of firmware in its historical context, the font and background keep changing. You can see my edits in the history of the article, and you can see what happened when I tried to edit. I'm trying to explain that the concept of firmware developed when it became clear that computers sometimes had to run programs automatically to make relatively easy for humans to use. Sorry about the above reply where I got your name wrong. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I actually didn't see any serious problems with the formatting of the material you had added. I restored it. While I was at it I added paragraph breaks and improved formatting of your citation. ~Kvng (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Editing