31
Switch to a Fully free Operating System (piefed.social)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
87 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As per fsf only those linux distributions are 100% free:

Dragora
Dyne
Guix
Hyperbola
Parabola
PureOS
Trisquel
Ututo
libreCMC
ProteanOS

Do you agree or no?

I see a lot of people that want to switch from windows to a linux distro or a open os. But from what i see they tend to migrate to another black boxed/closed os.

What is a trully free os that doesnt included any closed code/binary blobs/closed drivers etc.

Just 100% free open code, no traps.

What are the options and what should one go with if they want fully free os that rejects any closed code?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

The FSF has an ass-backwards approach to firmware, leading to only these distros fulfilling their requirements.

Their preference for firmware is as follows:

  1. Firmware that's open source (fair enough)
  2. Firmware that can't be updated (i.e. devices that are flashed once at the factory)
  3. Firmware that can be updated (CPU microcode, firmware for GPUs, SSDs, etc)

As Linux includes patching of CPU microcode on boot (to fix security vulnerabilities and bugs) the default build of Linux doesn't fulfill those requirements.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Honestly, I am grateful that the FSF is a bit more strict in this definition. While I do not care too much about this, I think it is good that we have some ideal to follow and look forward. And its good, because anyone who wants to go that route, have a community and direction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Disagree. Their priorities are backwards.

    Company A releases a product, it runs closed-source proprietary firmware on-board, and it can't be updated by the user even if bugs or compatibility issues are found later on in the product's life cycle.

    Company B releases a product, it runs closed-source proprietary firmware on-board, but it can be updated by the user if bugs or compatibility issues are found later on in the product's life cycle.

    According to the FSF, product A gets the stamp of approval, product B doesn't. That makes no sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Idealism is fine.

    Braindead self-denial less so.

    How is proprietary firmware that cannot be updated superior?

    The line the FSF draws between what is hardware and what is software is total nonsense

    The FSF should stick to software so they can maintain the completely hard line that you value. That can apply to actual software.

    There should maybe be a Free Hardware Foundation too (maybe a sister or sub-project). If that existed though, they would have to reject pretty much all the hardware that all of us use, including the hardware that the operating systems in this list were designed to run on. Because they are all completely proprietary regardless of their firmware update policies.

    I would love a FHF. Let’s all use open schematic, RISC-V systems with open source firmware. Yes please!

    But let’s stop doing dumb shit like refusing to update the microcode on our Intel CPU and pretending that is more free instead of just more dumb.

    The way why the FSF approaches firmware today is totally braindead (in my view).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent