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?
I do not mind that they are purists. On this issue, my problem is that the line they draw between open and proprietary is an entirely meaningless one and yet the act as absolutist about it as everything else.
I do not mind that they are “pure”. I dislike that what they are saying is wrong (inaccurate, not morally wrong).
The operating system and up seems like a totally resonance place to draw the line for Free Software. I mean “software” is right in the name.
Making a big deal about firmware is asking me to pretend I do not know how hardware works and ignore that I am actually using totally proprietary tech regardless. And classifying hardware that is more open as less free just jumps the shark completely. It hear no evil, see no evil nonsense that demands that I never ask questions or look behind the curtain.
I do disagree with you. Proprietary firmware and proprietary hardware does make you less free. But if the rental agreement you have with them is good enough for you, why would I bash you for it, you know?
Its why RISCV is exciting in the CPU space to me. Its more free (even if the IP under it is proprietary). Every step we take towards it advanced the field to me. Again though, if you are renting any piece of the stack, it’s still better that you own what you can to do what you/want then just giving into the “you will own nothing” push.
Just gotta take the wins where we can, celebrate the work, and keep working, you know?
I am not sure we are understanding each other. My point is that the FSF counting worse firmware outcomes as wins (like firmware that I cannot even see or update). Their position is that, if it is not a binary blob in your distro, it does not exist and is therefore ok. Whatever. Firmware that can be updated is better than firmware that cannot. The fact that that they disagree is nuts.
Let’s just agree that RISC-V is a good thing. I cannot wait to have Linux running on a truly free ISA. The hardware design needs to be free too though. The ISA is not enough. A proprietary chip is still a proprietary chip even if the ISA is RISC-V.
But, if the ISA is free, at least I am not locked into a proprietary ecosystem because I can also buy my hardware from somebody else and run all my existing software on it.
People underestimate how important RISC-V is on the micro-controller side. Because when you have an NVIDIA GPU, the “firmware” that you use on Linux is just small piece of the puzzle. There are several chips in that card and today you have absolutely no idea how any of them work. You may not even know what ISA they use. In the future (and it is increasingly common today) all those internal chips will be RISC-V chips too.
Ahh I did misunderstand. Maybe concept you and I support would be better called Libre computing, with the stack that the FSF caring about being above the rest of the logic, but it is still logic that decides what does or does not happen to our data on our machines.