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?
Calling Debian stable another black boxed closed OS is just rage bait.
Bruh is your CPU even source available?
The only option for true transparency is to build it from scratch, like at the logic gate level.
Those distros have ethical and legal value but they don’t magically make you better off.
The reduction in proprietary hardware that results from those systems is not meaningful in my view while the massive reduction in security and the greater inconvenience matter.
People have no idea how their hardware works. A card from NVIDIA has not just the NVIDIA drivers but a bunch of internal systems with additional firmware. Even your CPU may have an entire OS on it.
Hardware that allows its firmware to be updated is more open, not less, even if I currently only have proprietary firmware to load on it. And at least it can be updated. Simply not letting me upgrade the firmware does not magically make the hardware more open. Not allowing proprietary firmware for an open source operating system is just not an idea that resonates with me.
Would I prefer fully open source hardware and firmware? Yes. I am happy to see these options are slowly developing. In the meantime, we all run our software on proprietary hardware and drawing the line between hardware and software at a less convenient or less secure point is not making me any more free.
At least, that is my opinion man.
Intel defiantly have they own small os in CPU it’s based on minix
Probably OpenBSD NetBSD
We need purists like the fsf. They are truly fighting the good fight, but I am also happy to see people be just more free too, even with some compromise.
We need purists like the fsf.
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.
I agree, rhetoric like OP’s framing a non-FOSS distro as ‘just another closed source/black boxed OS’ reads like OP is suggesting it isn’t even with migrating from Windows to say, Bazzite. Which is dangerous.
I’ll take a door I can peer into but has a few shadows over a completely closed door anyday.
I daily Trisquel on my secondary laptop (corebooted X230), and it’s great!
The main issue regular user would face with these 100% Free distro is wifi cards compatibility. Most will not work and the ones that do are old and slow.
I think using major distros like Fedora, Ubuntu, or Debian is fine, because corporate backing often supports faster security fixes and better infrastructure.
Fedora and Debian are 100% free operating systems that only include free software.
The FSF does not like them because they include non-free firmware.
The debate is entirely how you define what is software and what is hardware.
How is it 100% free if it has non free firmware? Lol.
Your hardware is most likely not free and open source. If you use non-free hardware, it is better to have security fixes then leave it unpatched. If you are using non-free hardware it doesn’t matter how free your distro is, you still must depend on hardware blackboxes. Your hardware can directly interact with your distro and do something malicious regardless of the presence of firmware blobs.
Those distros (Fefora & Debian) are fully free, but acknowledge that hardware isn’t in most cases. And like responsible and reasonable developers they choose what is best for stability and security.
Wasn’t there something that couldn’t be classified as free because it had json or something which has a licence and it’s only stipulation is is “do not use for evil”?
Aren’t these shipped without any proprietary firmware, which you can try and if it works for you it works and use it but for many people these just won’t work and using stuff like arch/Debian/fedora/opensuse to name a few will work much better. Like they are great distros if they work for you use them but they are not for everyone.
This. No property firmware blobs, nothing that is considered non free software.
So, no Nvidia graphics for gaming, no wifi and bt, a bunch of software not available.
No. You don’t get it.
You have to switch to hardware that keeps its firmware safely hidden inside so we can call it “hardware”. If you let the firmware be updated, now it is “software” and it has to be free. But you can run in whatever “hardware” you want and be totally free.
I don’t get what?
There is a reason for the naming hardware, firmware, software.
HARD, FIRM, SOFT.
No, hardware das not bekomme Software just because it has firmware.
And yes it would love to see free firmware.
Look at CPU microcode. It is used to fix security issues in hardware. Without it you are vulnerable. Not using the property firmware blob to update the microcode is a very very bad idea. Does that make the CPU software…
Sorry buddy. It looks like I somehow replied to the wrong comment.
You misunderstood me (no surprise given the first sentence).
No, the CPU does not become “software” because it has firmware. Which is why it is crazy to disqualify Linux distros as “free” when they include firmware blobs.
Based on your comment here, I would say we completely agree.
[EDIT: Actually, I see my mistake now. I was replying to you. I just forgot to put the /s at the end of my first line. I said “You don’t get it” because “you do get it”.]
Sorry, I am very sensible regarding this topic. I may have overreacted too.
I would suggest we keep those comments here for the overall content and shake hands :)
Very happy to shake hands. Have an excellent week.
I thought Debian didn’t include firmware and other binaries by default. I remember having a separate firmware CD for installs on weird RAID controllers. Did that change?
They changed that with Debian 12 I think
It didn’t until 2022 or so, it’s had a toggle that can be turned on or off for non-free repo’s for as long as I can remember but, starting around 2022 they changed the default to allow for non-free (and also apparently made it a pain in the butt for the live install to disable it because its a boot param now instead of a toggle)
Never upgrading your CPU firmware is a bad idea. Most of the people saying that “works for them” have no idea what they are talking about. Yea, your system runs. Congratulations.
And they are still running on proprietary firmware. Just outdated firmware that they refuse to update.
It is just such utter nonsense. It makes my brain hurt.
Hard disagree. Only people that are already in linux-land should even think or talk about this, and only after they’re aware of what they depend on and whether they can even do that in the first place.
Main reason: biggest thing holding Linux back is user-base. The more users there are, the more that companies will actually care about supporting the OS. In the meantime, newbies to Linux need an OS that is as hassle free as possible that supports what they need. Windows and macOS have their downsides, but you can’t disagree that they work out of the box. You only get a few chances to get someone to even think about switching ecosystems, and going to a straight free distro is another huge hurdle on top of that. Most closed source applications only get tested on debian/rhel based distros anyway, I wouldn’t be able to do my my day job on a distro outside of that without some serious headache.
There are many closed source components that don’t have equivalent open source alternatives, and features are a thing that will snag many people. Most people aren’t technical.
My priority in what I use is for it to work out-of-the-box, be secure, and not get in my way. For security reasons I do support the concept of 100% open-source purity (though I’m much softer on or even opposed to the “free” part of FOSS), but I’m not prepared to sacrifice convenience for that cause.
You know it’s explicitly not “free as in beer” right?
Depending on whether you want a distro that removes all non-free options from the start or one that gives you free options, or ways to only select free options, I’d add Gentoo to that list. Much like in other situations, it gives you the choice to have your cake and eat it too. You can select a list of licenses you want (with certain predefined sets), and override that list on a per-package basis if you want/need.
Here is a Guide/Wiki-Article.
Make sure they /actually work/ on your computer; not for nothing Debian started to include proprietary drivers by default.
If you switch to <fully-free-os> and nothing works, then what?
We would all prefer no proprietary code whatsoever, but prefer even more that stuff would work.
If you really want to go for fully libre route, I’d consider buying –in the future or now, depends on how much do you want it right now– the correct hardware for it.
Ah… but then that’s not enough, you need to insure that the supply chain itself is 100% free! For example if you are using an Intel CPU, how can you verify it does what it says it does?
Enter precursor.dev ! Check this out if 100% free is not enough for you.
PS: honestly do what makes pragmatically your world, and that of the ones around you, better. Hopefully it is toward free software but IMHO if you have more agency with usage (which yes does overlap significantly with this) then it’s a powerful step to keep on doing so.
The FSF has an ass-backwards approach to firmware, leading to only these distros fulfilling their requirements.
Their preference for firmware is as follows:
- Firmware that’s open source (fair enough)
- Firmware that can’t be updated (i.e. devices that are flashed once at the factory)
- 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.
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.
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).
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.
