Shaking my head at this marketing BS from Purism. They believe in free software "to their core" so much that they colluded with the FSF and spent a ton of work *hiding* proprietary blobs from users (and eliminating their freedom to see them, audit them, and replace them)

4:13 PM ยท Dec 22, 2020

4
24
5
111
Thread here. There is no such thing as a 100% Free platform. There are freer and less free platforms, and then there are those who deceive in order to claim they're 100% free by some arbitrary meaningless definition.
Reading up on the @Puri_sm Librem 5. Nice idea, but it's a damn shame they're using the @FSF RYF certification as a goal and to guide the development process. RYF is total nonsense that encourages *decreasing* user freedom.
Show this thread
2
1
0
54
If you care about software and hardware freedom for practical reasons (as opposed to some arbitrary religious dogma promulgated by the FSF with no objective backing), then focus on those who deliver results, instead of vying for some meaningless (or worse) certification.
1
3
0
42
The push for software and hardware freedom is real, and more and more platforms are becoming freer and freer. But if someone claims to be selling you True Freedom today, they're probably lying. Honest developers will carefully explain the limits to the freedom of their product.
1
4
0
40
Dishonest developers will try to hide the ugly bits, so they can claim to be selling a Truly Free product while hoping you never see nor notice the nonfree bits.
3
3
0
35
Replying to @marcan42
My company has never found himself "having to compromise" with foss. Except .. I dunno... the designers here use Photoshop because they don't want to use Gimp, is that a compromise?. And we sometimes use Windows OS Images to test websites in Internet Explorer.
0
0
0
0
This has been the FSF's long-term position, originally dictated by Stallman: that proprietary firmware on machines he was using was acceptable if, and *only* if, it was hidden well enough that he could pretend it wasn't there. I never understood it.
0
0
0
12
Replying to @marcan42
The freedom of the user to "see them, audit them and replace them" is not limited in any way (at least not where Purism had any control over that). It's just not a required way of operation for normal user. Please don't spread FUD.
1
0
0
4
Sure, you can replace Purism's u-boot with one that ignores their entire scheme and just loads the blob normally. Then you have a device that is just as free, but doesn't try to lie to the user about it. It also now has a useless Flash chip, a waste of money and resources.
1
0
0
0