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.

Agree those are 100% free? I don’t know. It would take a lot of research to verify but I trust fsf as it is currently so think its likely the case. Agree to fully switch to a 100% free os? No. I need the nvidia driver. I would like to though. Believe that really any linux distro is a black box/closed os? No. Just having some binary blobs from vendors is a compromise but its not a deal breaker.

Iirc, the list is of operating systems that the FSF recommends. You could have a system running 100% free software, but the FSF won’t recommend it if the distro makes it easy to theoretically install proprietary code. It’s fine to run such a system, but the FSF won’t recommend it.

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.

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.

Better get an Open Hardware RISC V system, with stuff like the graphics, sound and elt/WiFi/Bt being Open Hardware too.

Then you can go with a fully open OS and it will actually make sense.

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.

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”?

Debain and Fedora are 100% free software operating systems.

Point at a single package in either one that is proprietary software.

Driver firmware does not count. Why? Because that is hardware. The hardware is proprietary regardless and there is proprietary firmware in my hardware regardless of what my OS does.

None of the operating systems listed run on “free” hardware, so arguing about how free the non-free hardware is is meaningless.

Calling Debian and Fedora “closed source” or “black box” because they distribute firmware is madness. Hardware that cannot be updated at all is less “black box”? If that is your view, your opinions hold no weight with me at all.

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.

Personally I’m a fan of smoke signals. No proprietary blobs in sight.

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.

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.

For that goal, really stick by the FSF recommendations, for that, they are perfect as they have strict requirements.

But I think calling other GNU/Linux distros black box only because some drivers are proprietary is a bit too far, some people just prefer a “minimum damage” approach and that’s a compromise everyone needs to decide for themselves. If I were living in China or Iraq, however, then I would exclusively run distros like that as well.

Calling Debian stable another black boxed closed OS is just rage bait.