Trisquel GNU/Linux(trisquel.info)
trisquel.info
Trisquel GNU/Linux
https://trisquel.info/
83 comments
> Debian tends to be more up to date than Trisquel since it's usually based on the previous Ubuntu LTS.
Agreed with most of what you wrote, except this last bit ... it's a funny way to put it :)
Ubuntu is based on Debian, it "forks" from Debian "unstable" aka "sid" every 6 months (with a fair amount of additions and modifications). Debian stable is released roughly every 18 to 22 months, so it has similar age, on average, of Ubuntu LTS (uniformly every 24 months). But sometimes it's a year newer, sometimes a year older, etc.
Agreed with most of what you wrote, except this last bit ... it's a funny way to put it :)
Ubuntu is based on Debian, it "forks" from Debian "unstable" aka "sid" every 6 months (with a fair amount of additions and modifications). Debian stable is released roughly every 18 to 22 months, so it has similar age, on average, of Ubuntu LTS (uniformly every 24 months). But sometimes it's a year newer, sometimes a year older, etc.
[deleted]
Why Trisquel?
> entirely free software
> teach users to value and protect their freedom
> no binary-only firmware for wireless cards or proprietary drivers for AMD/ATI and NVIDIA graphics cards are included
> entirely free software
> teach users to value and protect their freedom
> no binary-only firmware for wireless cards or proprietary drivers for AMD/ATI and NVIDIA graphics cards are included
Do they have version that doesn't mimic windows? I do understand that it is intended to take on board as many former windows users as possible but honestly some people including me are getting sick just by looking at something that even slightly reminds it ...
I wish the project the best, please understand.
I don't think it's mimicking Windows, but you can always install a different GNU/Linux-libre distro, such as Arch-based Parabola or GNU Guix
For unreasonable downvoters let me explain that windows interface is not only aesthetically disgusting it is absolutely uncomfortable and not logically consistent therefore should be avoided as much as possible in my opinion. Familiarity is not everything.
When you deal with software you kind of communicating with the imaginary one who build it. So when I am forced to use windows even for a moment I have the constant annoying impression that I am dealing with some one crazy who can through things in random places without logic or with logic that is changing from one part to another randomly. I simply can't stand it and I know there are other people who can't stand it too.
And please do not think I am saying it without knowing how perfectly and logically windows is organized. I worked with it and programmed it for 10 years. It was a perfect school called "How not to do things".
When you deal with software you kind of communicating with the imaginary one who build it. So when I am forced to use windows even for a moment I have the constant annoying impression that I am dealing with some one crazy who can through things in random places without logic or with logic that is changing from one part to another randomly. I simply can't stand it and I know there are other people who can't stand it too.
And please do not think I am saying it without knowing how perfectly and logically windows is organized. I worked with it and programmed it for 10 years. It was a perfect school called "How not to do things".
How are they mimicking Windows? They've got a task bar (loosely), a start button (ish), and the traditional floating windows with a title bar that has buttons on it, but beyond that I'm not seeing any real similarities? Even then: The application menu is an actual menu unlike what Windows has had since... XP? The panel has launchers and open windows, but they're separate sections unlike Windows. I guess I'm just not sure what you're seeing that so reminds you of Windows.
Trisquel is an FSF project so there is absolutely nothing proprietary in it (including the kernel which is stripped of proprietary drivers).
Which of course is ideologically great but makes real-world hardware support nightmarish.
Which of course is ideologically great but makes real-world hardware support nightmarish.
Trisquel's FAQ says:
> Why should I use Trisquel instead of one of the better-known distributions?
> There are literally hundreds of GNU/Linux distributions designed to fill every conceivable niche. Only a handful of them are entirely free software; Trisquel is one such distribution.
... but I disagree. Trisquel is based on ubuntu, and uses systemd. Not just as some optional init system you can remove - it's deeply dependent on systemd. And while systemd's license is free, may find it tends to suppress aspects of free software development by taking over and enclosing more and more system functionality.
If Trisquel were to dump systemd, I would seriously consider using it. My personal choice these days is Devuan (https://devuan.org/), the systemd-free variant of Debian., and I suggest you consider using it without the non-free components, instead of Trisquel.
> Why should I use Trisquel instead of one of the better-known distributions?
> There are literally hundreds of GNU/Linux distributions designed to fill every conceivable niche. Only a handful of them are entirely free software; Trisquel is one such distribution.
... but I disagree. Trisquel is based on ubuntu, and uses systemd. Not just as some optional init system you can remove - it's deeply dependent on systemd. And while systemd's license is free, may find it tends to suppress aspects of free software development by taking over and enclosing more and more system functionality.
If Trisquel were to dump systemd, I would seriously consider using it. My personal choice these days is Devuan (https://devuan.org/), the systemd-free variant of Debian., and I suggest you consider using it without the non-free components, instead of Trisquel.
You are mixing concepts that are at different levels.
Free software is an answer to an ethical / political issue (user rights).
Systemd is an answer to a technical problem (how to manage system services, to simplify a lot).
And to each their own. It's good you found something that suits you in Devuan, but it has never been easier for me to tweak my systems since systemd landed on the distributions I use. Writing a service is a breeze, including free software I wrote. Things are fast at last. It took over for reasons, and I think those reasons are technical excellence and easier maintenance burden for distributions. I'm very happy with systemd. I don't feel like it "suppresses aspects of free software development" at all.
Free software is an answer to an ethical / political issue (user rights).
Systemd is an answer to a technical problem (how to manage system services, to simplify a lot).
And to each their own. It's good you found something that suits you in Devuan, but it has never been easier for me to tweak my systems since systemd landed on the distributions I use. Writing a service is a breeze, including free software I wrote. Things are fast at last. It took over for reasons, and I think those reasons are technical excellence and easier maintenance burden for distributions. I'm very happy with systemd. I don't feel like it "suppresses aspects of free software development" at all.
Another Linx distro catches up to the user experience of Windows for Workgroups
I do understand that it is intended to take on board as many former windows users as possible but honestly I can't even look at it without pain just because it reminds this ugly windows 'style'.
I would really prefer they would put something else as default.
I would really prefer they would put something else as default.
Since it runs on Linux-libre, there is a good chance several devices/peripherals will fail to perform as intended. If the idea is to have a toy distro (working as a VM) to explore around, it’s looking great. But I don’t see why it will gain traction for real use case.
Reminder that linux-libre also removes warnings in the kernel that you're running outdated CPU microcode, because the FSF doesn't believe users should be informed about updates (some of which are security critical) to proprietary software they are already running anyway.
Make of that what you will.
Make of that what you will.
I get where they’re coming from, but this just sounds insane. If there were FOSS CPU microcode that could replace it or something and they only wanted to support that than fine, but if there’s no FOSS option why create security risks for users?
I love the FOSS community, but sometimes their rationale is a bit too extreme for the average person to get behind.
I love the FOSS community, but sometimes their rationale is a bit too extreme for the average person to get behind.
“is a bit too extreme”
Understatement of the year. You are a dev who wants to make some money on the side and keeps her software proprietary because monetizing open-source is a rare exception than the rule? F!@# her and her lack of ethics! And don’t touch her software, or her, with a 10 foot pole, let alone pay for it!
Oh, there’s a proprietary firmware blob that this device requires, but it runs off onboard flash so the OS doesn’t see it? Perfectly fine! If the OS doesn’t see it, see no evil, speak no evil, there is no evil.
The FSF are the Puritans of the 21st century. Both in extremity and hypocrisy.
Understatement of the year. You are a dev who wants to make some money on the side and keeps her software proprietary because monetizing open-source is a rare exception than the rule? F!@# her and her lack of ethics! And don’t touch her software, or her, with a 10 foot pole, let alone pay for it!
Oh, there’s a proprietary firmware blob that this device requires, but it runs off onboard flash so the OS doesn’t see it? Perfectly fine! If the OS doesn’t see it, see no evil, speak no evil, there is no evil.
The FSF are the Puritans of the 21st century. Both in extremity and hypocrisy.
You miss the point. It is absolutely true that making a living by writing FOSS is really hard, but it's not just about money. Monetizing out of personal data and advertising has never been profitable like today; Open Source is the only defense against abuse in that context. Look at what many popular closed operating systems and products, hardware included, became in the last 10 years or less: they stopped being tools in the hands of the user to morph into business platforms that mine users' data and/or bomb them with advertising.
Many people probably would accept to live in a world in which every square meter is plastered with some ads and every move is analyzed to infer users habits and ultimately find what would be the easiest way to grab the most money from them, but I don't. All this privacy and security aside, which in some countries can make the difference between being poor and being poor and jailed or dead.
FOSS is the last line of defense against that kind of abuse, being a bit extremist when dealing with abuses is a sign that someone, somewhere, understood what is going on.
BTW: if making money with FOSS is hard, it's not FOSS fault, but rather it shows how badly our economic system has failed.
BTW: if making money with FOSS is hard, it's not FOSS fault, but rather it shows how badly our economic system has failed.
> BTW: if making money with FOSS is hard, it's not FOSS fault, but rather it shows how badly our economic system has failed.
If your business gives away its products for free, then it's always going to be an uphill battle to make money.
If your business gives away its products for free, then it's always going to be an uphill battle to make money.
Just pre-fund with kickstarter or similar.
Or through a light taxation system for biggest companies. If say .01% of the revenue of the 100 biggest IT corporations was distributed yearly among the most useful projects, those in need of maintainers etc, the developers living in bad economical conditions etc. the problem would probably cease to exist for thousands of developers while those being taxed would barely notice some missing change from their pockets. Not that different from public healthcare, therefore it requires a change of perspectives (the common good) to fully understand it.
Who defines the most useful projects? How do new projects get their start?
I think a simpler and less revolutionary route would be to simplify the registration of open source projects to be able receive tax exempt donations. That’d be a massive boost with only a minor change to the tax code.
I think a simpler and less revolutionary route would be to simplify the registration of open source projects to be able receive tax exempt donations. That’d be a massive boost with only a minor change to the tax code.
>Understatement of the year. You are a dev who wants to make some money on the side and keeps her software proprietary because monetizing open-source is a rare exception than the rule? F!@# her and her lack of ethics! And don’t touch her software, or her, with a 10 foot pole, let alone pay for it!
Are you asking for the free software foundation to support proprietary software?
Are you asking for the free software foundation to support proprietary software?
I think that's just the point here: yes, strictly speaking they are, but practically speaking the alternative is to put the user's cybersecurity at risk.
If you ask just about any user, they will say they prioritise their cybersecurity over the purity of their Free Software stack. The FSF seemingly disagree. That disagreement is an important one.
If you ask just about any user, they will say they prioritise their cybersecurity over the purity of their Free Software stack. The FSF seemingly disagree. That disagreement is an important one.
I don't know. You can spin a lot of stuff as cyber security.
Hosting all stuff in cloud does prevent getting locked by some ransom ware.
Plus security isn't an absolute. A determined enough actor could always hack you.
Hosting all stuff in cloud does prevent getting locked by some ransom ware.
Plus security isn't an absolute. A determined enough actor could always hack you.
[deleted]
> Puritans of the 21st century. Both in extremity
For work I run MacOS, because they assigned me a Macbook and pay me to do so. Currently I program Android, which has a free software system somewhere under there, although there are unfree layers on top, which have been discussed to death.
I also personally use Ubuntu for my desktop and laptop. Years ago I put Gnewsense as a boot-up option for a machine.
For different tasks I use different levels of proprietary or free software. I don't see my installing of Gnewsense as puritanical or extreme (me wanting full control of my OS is puritanical and extreme?), just as I don't see me using the proprietary MacOS as puritanical and extreme. If me being able to control my own operating system is puritanical and extreme, then what do you call having someone else being able to control my operating system?
There may be free extremists but that means there are proprietary extremists as well.
For work I run MacOS, because they assigned me a Macbook and pay me to do so. Currently I program Android, which has a free software system somewhere under there, although there are unfree layers on top, which have been discussed to death.
I also personally use Ubuntu for my desktop and laptop. Years ago I put Gnewsense as a boot-up option for a machine.
For different tasks I use different levels of proprietary or free software. I don't see my installing of Gnewsense as puritanical or extreme (me wanting full control of my OS is puritanical and extreme?), just as I don't see me using the proprietary MacOS as puritanical and extreme. If me being able to control my own operating system is puritanical and extreme, then what do you call having someone else being able to control my operating system?
There may be free extremists but that means there are proprietary extremists as well.
This shouldn't be downvoted. It's an opinion that is unpopular here, but which needs to be stated occasionally. The FSF is extreme, and, right now, not 10-20 years ago, but right now, the FSF and Stallman are negative assets for FOSS.
How is it “extreme”? The point of the FSF is to foster and support free software. Supporting non-free software is literally the opposite of their mission.
The guy you replied to is being childish and exaggerating. The FSF isn’t some extremist organization out to destroy people who dare to write or use closed source software.
Do they refuse to include proprietary software in their distributions/projects? Obviously.
Are they going to tell you to go fuck yourself because you refuse to release the source code to your app? Probably not (I guess if you’re an asshole about it, someone might)
> the FSF and Stallman are negative assets for FOSS
The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. Who else is supporting free software?
The guy you replied to is being childish and exaggerating. The FSF isn’t some extremist organization out to destroy people who dare to write or use closed source software.
Do they refuse to include proprietary software in their distributions/projects? Obviously.
Are they going to tell you to go fuck yourself because you refuse to release the source code to your app? Probably not (I guess if you’re an asshole about it, someone might)
> the FSF and Stallman are negative assets for FOSS
The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. Who else is supporting free software?
> The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS.
The FSF doesn't even support the use of the term "FOSS".
They support the idea of libre software. The broader "open source" community is much larger than the FSF or RMS.
The GPL is the third most popular FOSS license.
The FSF doesn't even support the use of the term "FOSS".
They support the idea of libre software. The broader "open source" community is much larger than the FSF or RMS.
The GPL is the third most popular FOSS license.
> The FSF doesn't even support the use of the term "FOSS".
Personally I use "FOSS" as shorthand for FSF's definition of "free software". If that's misleading, then I guess I should stop using it. Would you happen to have a link to a blog post or something about this?
> They support the idea of libre software. The broader "open source" community is much larger than the FSF or RMS.
I'm not talking about the "open source" community. There's a difference between free software and open source software.
It's obvious that I'm not talking about "open source" here, otherwise it'd suggest that I think FSF and RMS are the only ones writing open source software. I can't even imagine a situation where someone could be led to believe that, especially on HN.
> The GPL is the third most popular FOSS license.
Regardless of what you mean by "FOSS" here, how is that statistic relevant to the discussion?
Personally I use "FOSS" as shorthand for FSF's definition of "free software". If that's misleading, then I guess I should stop using it. Would you happen to have a link to a blog post or something about this?
> They support the idea of libre software. The broader "open source" community is much larger than the FSF or RMS.
I'm not talking about the "open source" community. There's a difference between free software and open source software.
It's obvious that I'm not talking about "open source" here, otherwise it'd suggest that I think FSF and RMS are the only ones writing open source software. I can't even imagine a situation where someone could be led to believe that, especially on HN.
> The GPL is the third most popular FOSS license.
Regardless of what you mean by "FOSS" here, how is that statistic relevant to the discussion?
I think you may have too rosy a view of the FSF. Step back and think about what the FSF has done for FOSS in the last 10 years. When people say "I don't want to get into a licensing debate" who do you think they are talking about?
> Are they going to tell you to go fuck yourself because you refuse to release the source code to your app? Probably not (I guess if you’re an asshole about it, someone might)
I can cite an example of where someone from the FSF has hassled an FOSS project that refused to modify their license to the GPL, and instead chose MIT. I'd prefer not link here, because I don't want the maintainers to be inundated with further (BS) requests. I'd say that's extreme. What's worse is it's off-putting (to me, at the very least).
> The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. Who else is supporting free software?
Um, literally all the people writing FOSS? Mozilla, IBM/Redhat, Google?
> Are they going to tell you to go fuck yourself because you refuse to release the source code to your app? Probably not (I guess if you’re an asshole about it, someone might)
I can cite an example of where someone from the FSF has hassled an FOSS project that refused to modify their license to the GPL, and instead chose MIT. I'd prefer not link here, because I don't want the maintainers to be inundated with further (BS) requests. I'd say that's extreme. What's worse is it's off-putting (to me, at the very least).
> The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. Who else is supporting free software?
Um, literally all the people writing FOSS? Mozilla, IBM/Redhat, Google?
How much of what Mozilla and Google are writing is released under GPL?
I guess I don't understand your point. Are you saying non-GPL open source licenses (Apache, MPL2, MIT) aren't FOSS? That seems like a pretty extreme position.
> That seems like a pretty extreme position.
I think you're confusing some terms. "Free software" != "Open source software". (although MPL2 is a free software license, like GPL/LGPL).
Ever heard the saying "free as in freedom"? That's what "free software" is about. It has nothing to do with money or pricing. A license like Apache or MIT is not a free software license because it does not provide any freedom to end users.
Look at Android for example: there's something called AOSP on the internet, which contains some code that you can download. However, that code is not the same code that's powering the phone you have in your pocket. Since AOSP is licensed under Apache, Samsung is able to fork it, add/remove features, inject all the spyware they want etc, and then sell it to you as a binary blob without giving you the source code.
If Android were GPL, they'd be obligated to release the source code that's powering their devices. This would be a huge win for consumers, and a huge win for the entire tech industry at large, since everyone can benefit from the development efforts Samsung put in. If Samsung wants to keep that code secret, then they simply must avoid using free (as in freedom) software.
It worries me that devs today don't seem to get this. The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman.
More/better info: https://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs
I think you're confusing some terms. "Free software" != "Open source software". (although MPL2 is a free software license, like GPL/LGPL).
Ever heard the saying "free as in freedom"? That's what "free software" is about. It has nothing to do with money or pricing. A license like Apache or MIT is not a free software license because it does not provide any freedom to end users.
Look at Android for example: there's something called AOSP on the internet, which contains some code that you can download. However, that code is not the same code that's powering the phone you have in your pocket. Since AOSP is licensed under Apache, Samsung is able to fork it, add/remove features, inject all the spyware they want etc, and then sell it to you as a binary blob without giving you the source code.
If Android were GPL, they'd be obligated to release the source code that's powering their devices. This would be a huge win for consumers, and a huge win for the entire tech industry at large, since everyone can benefit from the development efforts Samsung put in. If Samsung wants to keep that code secret, then they simply must avoid using free (as in freedom) software.
It worries me that devs today don't seem to get this. The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman.
More/better info: https://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs
I have to tell you -- being patronized by a GPL advocate isn't a new or unusual experience for me, but, I'm still amazed people believe this is the way to win converts.
FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. And there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's.
Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?). No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman" is a reasonable view of the history.
FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. And there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's.
Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?). No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman" is a reasonable view of the history.
How am I being patronizing? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're just confused about the definition of some terminology that people commonly get confused about.
If you are aware of the definition, and are conflating the terms on purpose to make a statement or something, the derailing of this conversation is on your for being deliberately confusing.
> there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's.
Sure, but since the conversation is about the FSF, I think it's obvious that I'm talking about the FSF's definition of the term "freedom" (especially since I linked to it)
> Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?)
Did you actually read what I wrote? I wasn't introducing you to Android, I was using it as an example to highlight the consequences of using a non-free license on a project. Something I felt would be helpful since you didn't seem to be aware of the FSF's definition of free software.
> No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman" is a reasonable view of the history.
Ok, fine, maybe take a 9 or two off the end.
If you are aware of the definition, and are conflating the terms on purpose to make a statement or something, the derailing of this conversation is on your for being deliberately confusing.
> there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's.
Sure, but since the conversation is about the FSF, I think it's obvious that I'm talking about the FSF's definition of the term "freedom" (especially since I linked to it)
> Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?)
Did you actually read what I wrote? I wasn't introducing you to Android, I was using it as an example to highlight the consequences of using a non-free license on a project. Something I felt would be helpful since you didn't seem to be aware of the FSF's definition of free software.
> No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman" is a reasonable view of the history.
Ok, fine, maybe take a 9 or two off the end.
How else other than by being radical do you expect not to lose ground?
This is just such an exceedingly weird opinion. "Permanent revolution" sounds very romantic, but real people want to stop and lives their lives, as well.
Once you've convinced the broader industry of the benefits of FOSS, I'm not sure everyone has to be a radical anymore. I think GPL advocates/FSF/Stallman's time might be better spent finding a way to pay FOSS developers.
Once you've convinced the broader industry of the benefits of FOSS, I'm not sure everyone has to be a radical anymore. I think GPL advocates/FSF/Stallman's time might be better spent finding a way to pay FOSS developers.
A gigacorporation owns the major git repository of open source software, and uses said code to promote its own ML code creation project.
Another steals free software to implement its own live streaming, unpunished.
Thousands of developers get paid to maintain free software by donations and contributions from the very advocates you find too radical.
And you find romanticism weird‽
Another steals free software to implement its own live streaming, unpunished.
Thousands of developers get paid to maintain free software by donations and contributions from the very advocates you find too radical.
And you find romanticism weird‽
I'd also say there is a pretty clear tree of an argument re: the "everything must be libre only" line:
1. Are you a developer? Do you want to use your code later in project that you may not control?
2. Do you use non-GPL software? Like X/Wayland?
3. Do you use proprietary software? Why does a game dev deserve to get paid when that logging software upon which your company depends does not?
4. You're not any of the above -- are simply a user that wants FOSS firmware? What has libre-Linux done for you on this front? The answer is nothing. Except keep ZFS out of the kernel, because... reasons? More open firmware will happen. However, not because of legal reasons, but because FOSS arguments for transparency and market forces.
I'm not saying your choices are wrong. They are your choices after all. I'm saying they're not the only possible choices.
1. Are you a developer? Do you want to use your code later in project that you may not control?
2. Do you use non-GPL software? Like X/Wayland?
3. Do you use proprietary software? Why does a game dev deserve to get paid when that logging software upon which your company depends does not?
4. You're not any of the above -- are simply a user that wants FOSS firmware? What has libre-Linux done for you on this front? The answer is nothing. Except keep ZFS out of the kernel, because... reasons? More open firmware will happen. However, not because of legal reasons, but because FOSS arguments for transparency and market forces.
I'm not saying your choices are wrong. They are your choices after all. I'm saying they're not the only possible choices.
Re: 1, legally speaking, GPL does virtually nothing to prevent an ML model more than, say, MIT. It's a problem for all FOSS licenses. FSF/GPL really don't represent all of FOSS. As someone else noted, GPL is the 3rd most popular FOSS license. I'd add -- for a reason.
Re: 2, I know less about this, but from what I do know, legally speaking, this seems like a trademark problem, not a copyright or license issue.
I'm saying, in some sense, you've already won. If you want to fight about trademarks and other IP, God bless, please do. Just please don't think adopting the most extreme position re: your license choice endows you with some heightened dignity over someone who just made a different choice.
Re: 2, I know less about this, but from what I do know, legally speaking, this seems like a trademark problem, not a copyright or license issue.
I'm saying, in some sense, you've already won. If you want to fight about trademarks and other IP, God bless, please do. Just please don't think adopting the most extreme position re: your license choice endows you with some heightened dignity over someone who just made a different choice.
What a reactive, defensive attitude.
Just try applying everything you wrote to the topic of being vegetarian. Vegetarians are indeed arguing against meat-eating, and you could talk about how you are just some pig farmer selling meat on the side, and the vegetarians are saying "F You!"
And then there's the practical problems with whether animal products are identified in various food products…
And people get super defensive about that stuff too. But this desire to reject the FSF or the vegetarians and call them extremists and hypocrites amounts to an emotional refusal to engage fairly with any of the actual issues or even what the people are actually saying or doing.
Just try applying everything you wrote to the topic of being vegetarian. Vegetarians are indeed arguing against meat-eating, and you could talk about how you are just some pig farmer selling meat on the side, and the vegetarians are saying "F You!"
And then there's the practical problems with whether animal products are identified in various food products…
And people get super defensive about that stuff too. But this desire to reject the FSF or the vegetarians and call them extremists and hypocrites amounts to an emotional refusal to engage fairly with any of the actual issues or even what the people are actually saying or doing.
Nothing I said was not true.
The FSF encourages all members to shun proprietary software of any kind - which is why we have Linux-Libre and Trisquel.
Even though, to put it simply, monetizing open source is very rare and the FSF looks down on people (including solo programmers) with the gall to keep their software proprietary.
The FSF is also a complete hypocrite when it comes to firmware. Proprietary firmware which the OS can’t see (because it is loaded from onboard flash) is compliant with their “Respects Your Freedom” hardware certification, which is asinine and actively reduces my freedom to reverse-engineer that firmware or replace it with an open driver.
According to FSF logic, a solo programmer making proprietary software for money is to be shunned. A device with an embedded proprietary blob could be certified as freedom-respecting and tolerable. That’s retarded.
The FSF encourages all members to shun proprietary software of any kind - which is why we have Linux-Libre and Trisquel.
Even though, to put it simply, monetizing open source is very rare and the FSF looks down on people (including solo programmers) with the gall to keep their software proprietary.
The FSF is also a complete hypocrite when it comes to firmware. Proprietary firmware which the OS can’t see (because it is loaded from onboard flash) is compliant with their “Respects Your Freedom” hardware certification, which is asinine and actively reduces my freedom to reverse-engineer that firmware or replace it with an open driver.
According to FSF logic, a solo programmer making proprietary software for money is to be shunned. A device with an embedded proprietary blob could be certified as freedom-respecting and tolerable. That’s retarded.
There are vegans who encourage shunning animal products. And yes, there are critiques of people with the "gall" to eat meat. Those facts don't mean they are wrong. That's a matter of engaging with the actual arguments.
To say the RYF certifcation is hypocritical is a misunderstanding. They drew a line for certification that isn't 100% puritanical. They aren't absolutely impractical. They don't say that your points about firmware don't matter, they just wanted a line that could be practical for the certification.
I recognize your point, but your language and judgments are out of line. The FSF argues that embedded blobs that are completely unchangeable by anyone are similar to hardware. Now, I happen to agree with you that the lack of freedom is still a problem. But the distinction they make isn't totally illogical.
Vegan movements can be extreme too, and you can criticize them. But the level of animosity and defensiveness people get into shows that people are really sensitive about these things. It's as though they recognize that there might really be some fundamental issues with proprietary software or with meat, and the existence of the anti-proprietary or anti-meat views cuts people to the core. I mean, it's one thing to simply disagree, but it says a lot more when people are SO emotional about it.
To say the RYF certifcation is hypocritical is a misunderstanding. They drew a line for certification that isn't 100% puritanical. They aren't absolutely impractical. They don't say that your points about firmware don't matter, they just wanted a line that could be practical for the certification.
I recognize your point, but your language and judgments are out of line. The FSF argues that embedded blobs that are completely unchangeable by anyone are similar to hardware. Now, I happen to agree with you that the lack of freedom is still a problem. But the distinction they make isn't totally illogical.
Vegan movements can be extreme too, and you can criticize them. But the level of animosity and defensiveness people get into shows that people are really sensitive about these things. It's as though they recognize that there might really be some fundamental issues with proprietary software or with meat, and the existence of the anti-proprietary or anti-meat views cuts people to the core. I mean, it's one thing to simply disagree, but it says a lot more when people are SO emotional about it.
Seems to me that they've found themselves stuck with the worst of both worlds. A freedom/privacy certification that has a pretty glaring (and arguably hypocritical) omission, and a tepid response from industry because they won't budge on things like including proprietary drivers for Windows.
Their certified product list is... sparse.
https://ryf.fsf.org/products
Their certified product list is... sparse.
https://ryf.fsf.org/products
the same thing applies to vegetarians. Smart and effective vegetarians who want to promote vegetarianism don't fill a balloon with red paint and throw it at someone while screaming 'meat is murder!', they convince people to cut down their consumption, promote alternatives that ordinary people can deal with, and as a result get 50% of what they want to a hundred times as many people, which is more than 100% of nothing.
That's the difference between ideologues and people who actually care about the values they promote rather than people who aggrandize themselves.
That's the difference between ideologues and people who actually care about the values they promote rather than people who aggrandize themselves.
The analogy works because 99.9% of vegetarians don't even use words to directly tell others that they are unethical, they just assert their OWN vegetarianism as an ethical decision, and others go bonkers as though this is the most grotesque personal attack. This all happens without any red-paint-balloons or other extremist stuff.
In other words, when someone comes along and says what amounts to "for ethical reasons, I behave differently than you", people interpret it (understandably but unreasonably) as saying "you are an unethical person" (whereas the responsible reaction is, "hmm, maybe there's an ethical issue here that I should consider that I haven't yet"). Then, people focus all their attention on rationalizations to reject the other person, such as calling them "ideologues".
The Trisquel website doesn't say, "if you use or make proprietary software, you are evil". People react to the subtle implications as if that's what it said though. Maybe that's because people don't want to admit that they actually do act in ways that are ethical compromises?
In other words, when someone comes along and says what amounts to "for ethical reasons, I behave differently than you", people interpret it (understandably but unreasonably) as saying "you are an unethical person" (whereas the responsible reaction is, "hmm, maybe there's an ethical issue here that I should consider that I haven't yet"). Then, people focus all their attention on rationalizations to reject the other person, such as calling them "ideologues".
The Trisquel website doesn't say, "if you use or make proprietary software, you are evil". People react to the subtle implications as if that's what it said though. Maybe that's because people don't want to admit that they actually do act in ways that are ethical compromises?
> Smart and effective vegetarians who want to promote vegetarianism don't fill a balloon with red paint and throw it at someone while screaming 'meat is murder!'
Are the GNU/FSF folks doing that? The most I'm aware of is strongly-worded blog posts, which is rather short of physical ... outbursts.
Are the GNU/FSF folks doing that? The most I'm aware of is strongly-worded blog posts, which is rather short of physical ... outbursts.
> Reminder that linux-libre also removes warnings in the kernel that you're running outdated CPU microcode,
News to me. Maybe you a few links showing this?
News to me. Maybe you a few links showing this?
That's a bit concerning. Has anyone written about this somewhere? I'm guessing I'm not the only one who's had their interest piqued considering the large FOSS community here
Last time I tried to go into more depth about this one and related policy failings of the FSF and their associated projects here, it predictably descended into a long flamewar with FSF supporters, so I'll pass on it this time. But here's a link:
https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1377402589386432512?s=20
https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1377402589386432512?s=20
Thank you! I'm a supporter of the FSF and FOSS but I also think these ideologies have to be taken in consideration with security tradeoffs and current mitigation implementations. Free software is wonderful, but we should be honest about its capability to respond to some security threats like this. I think it would be better to include such warnings, even if it included an extra 'proprietary blob' warning.
Agreed. I'm a strong supporter of FOSS, from a pragmatic point of view of how it helps users and gives them more freedom. I do not believe ideological arguments against proprietary software should be used to make technical decisions that limit users' options or keep them uninformed, because the freedom to choose to use proprietary software is also important.
Plus, the current policies of the FSF are completely inconsistent, out of touch with the reality of computing systems today, and based on arbitrary rules that end up reducing user freedom instead of increasing it (e.g. how they promote devices with firmware ROMs - which you do not have the freedom to inspect, modify, or replace with a free version - while deriding devices with firmware RAM and a blob, where you do have those freedoms).
Plus, the current policies of the FSF are completely inconsistent, out of touch with the reality of computing systems today, and based on arbitrary rules that end up reducing user freedom instead of increasing it (e.g. how they promote devices with firmware ROMs - which you do not have the freedom to inspect, modify, or replace with a free version - while deriding devices with firmware RAM and a blob, where you do have those freedoms).
>Plus, the current policies of the FSF are completely inconsistent, out of touch with the reality of computing systems today, and based on arbitrary rules that end up reducing user freedom instead of increasing it (e.g. how they promote devices with firmware ROMs - which you do not have the freedom to inspect, modify, or replace with a free version - while deriding devices with firmware RAM and a blob, where you do have those freedoms).
I would agree about inconsistency and say that unless everything is absolutely transparent including microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting solution.
On the other hand isn't FSF do compromise as you wanted when you say: "I do not believe ideological arguments against proprietary software should be used to ... "
I would agree about inconsistency and say that unless everything is absolutely transparent including microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting solution.
On the other hand isn't FSF do compromise as you wanted when you say: "I do not believe ideological arguments against proprietary software should be used to ... "
> unless everything is absolutely transparent including microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting solution.
Where do you draw the line?
Is it sufficient if all code executing on a Turing-complete CPU is open? Does the CPU itself need to be open RTL? What about the synthesis process to turn that into a netlist and then into a chip design, does that need to be open? What about the standard cell library from the chip foundry, does that need to be open? Then what about the actual foundry process - do you need documentation on how the chips are produced? What about all the raw materials? What about the machines used to make the chips?
You can keep going down the rabbit hole as deep as you want, but things will never be completely free. And you can't try to draw a random line, because the boundary between these steps isn't clear and that encourages cheating (which is what the FSF do).
Freedom isn't the answer. Freedom was a noble idea from the computing paradigm of the 80s that just doesn't work any more as an absolute goal.
The answer is to look beyond freedom and beyond meaningless absolutes, and towards what people get out of things being open. A device with more open source components is better because users have the freedom to modify them, and they are easier to audit to find security vulnerabilities. A device which sandboxes blobs - whether open or not - such that they cannot take over the system is better than one which does not. A device with proprietary firmware that you can modify and replace is better than one with signed firmware that you cannot. A device with signed firmware you can at least inspect is better than one with encrypted firmware you can't even see. A device with a firmware ROM you can't inspect or modify is worse than a device with signed and encrypted firmware blobs, because at least with the latter you can verify that the version you're running is what you expect, while you can't read the ROM at all. A device with encrypted firmware that only runs on boot and then is demonstrably out of the picture after that is better than one with privileged, resident blobs that continue running. A device with proprietary firmware that is at least redistributable to end-users of free OSes is better than one where it isn't. A device where it is reasonably easy to have end-users fetch said firmware even if it isn't redistributable is better than one where that is impractical. A device with mandatory user-controllable secure boot is better in some ways than a device with no secure boot at all, and worse in others.
Nuance matters. Absolutist positions don't work any more.
Where do you draw the line?
Is it sufficient if all code executing on a Turing-complete CPU is open? Does the CPU itself need to be open RTL? What about the synthesis process to turn that into a netlist and then into a chip design, does that need to be open? What about the standard cell library from the chip foundry, does that need to be open? Then what about the actual foundry process - do you need documentation on how the chips are produced? What about all the raw materials? What about the machines used to make the chips?
You can keep going down the rabbit hole as deep as you want, but things will never be completely free. And you can't try to draw a random line, because the boundary between these steps isn't clear and that encourages cheating (which is what the FSF do).
Freedom isn't the answer. Freedom was a noble idea from the computing paradigm of the 80s that just doesn't work any more as an absolute goal.
The answer is to look beyond freedom and beyond meaningless absolutes, and towards what people get out of things being open. A device with more open source components is better because users have the freedom to modify them, and they are easier to audit to find security vulnerabilities. A device which sandboxes blobs - whether open or not - such that they cannot take over the system is better than one which does not. A device with proprietary firmware that you can modify and replace is better than one with signed firmware that you cannot. A device with signed firmware you can at least inspect is better than one with encrypted firmware you can't even see. A device with a firmware ROM you can't inspect or modify is worse than a device with signed and encrypted firmware blobs, because at least with the latter you can verify that the version you're running is what you expect, while you can't read the ROM at all. A device with encrypted firmware that only runs on boot and then is demonstrably out of the picture after that is better than one with privileged, resident blobs that continue running. A device with proprietary firmware that is at least redistributable to end-users of free OSes is better than one where it isn't. A device where it is reasonably easy to have end-users fetch said firmware even if it isn't redistributable is better than one where that is impractical. A device with mandatory user-controllable secure boot is better in some ways than a device with no secure boot at all, and worse in others.
Nuance matters. Absolutist positions don't work any more.
>Freedom isn't the answer. Freedom was a noble idea from the computing paradigm of the 80s that just doesn't work any more as an absolute goal.
I wish to ask you not to portrait reasonable expectations of certain freedoms as some kind of an absolute. It is reasonable to expect your computer to be under your full control and not under control of someone else.
Freedom isn't the answer? Then what we are talking about? You have certain freedom of controlling your own mind and your own body. Freedom isn't the answer there too? The way I see it computer is becoming extension of your mind/body and as such owner should have at least the same level of control over it.
>Where do you draw the line?
It is unclear for me from your post whether you are talking about 'line respecting freedom' or 'line acceptable at the moment because freedom is 80s dream and irrelevant now because we've learned to accept any shit by calling it progress' Let's assume it's the first one because the second one I think you've described.
The question about where you draw the line is a very hard one and I do not think I can or should answer it alone. Discussion is required to define it.
In short it is something along the lines I've described already - every part of the computer design should be transparent and open for inspection to call it a freedom respecting solution.
>Is it sufficient if all code executing on a Turing-complete CPU is open? Does the CPU itself need to be open RTL? What about the synthesis process to turn that into a netlist and then into a chip design, does that need to be open? What about the standard cell library from the chip foundry, does that need to be open? Then what about the actual foundry process - do you need documentation on how the chips are produced? What about all the raw materials? What about the machines used to make the chips? Basically all answers there are Yes. Again what it means in practice should be discussed but basically any reasonable person including you and anyone with your level of expertise should be able to say honestly that, yes indeed this computer is under full control of the owner and the owner only. It has no backdoor or ability to be remotely updated without the owner intention.
I think your question implies that there is one line to draw. If so then it is the one I've described above but I think it is better to draw a few lines with levels of freedom provided and mark every computer produced accordingly.
>Nuance matters. Absolutist positions don't work any more.
Do they? Wouldn't you say that Apple have a full control over their Mac M1? You are working with it so you should know exactly the answer to that question. With all their compromises the main door is under their full control and they hold they key to themselves, correct me if I am wrong.
If you ask today in practical terms what is a reasonable line to draw, let's draw it where Apple have done it except the key should be in the hands of the owner, not Apple. How about that? Would it satisfy? Actually you are the first one to ask about a proper line to draw but you should be honest about. You should be able to say "yes, this computer is under my full control" just like now Apple can say it's under their control and they guard it very carefully so perhaps they have figured where the line is.
I wish to ask you not to portrait reasonable expectations of certain freedoms as some kind of an absolute. It is reasonable to expect your computer to be under your full control and not under control of someone else.
Freedom isn't the answer? Then what we are talking about? You have certain freedom of controlling your own mind and your own body. Freedom isn't the answer there too? The way I see it computer is becoming extension of your mind/body and as such owner should have at least the same level of control over it.
>Where do you draw the line?
It is unclear for me from your post whether you are talking about 'line respecting freedom' or 'line acceptable at the moment because freedom is 80s dream and irrelevant now because we've learned to accept any shit by calling it progress' Let's assume it's the first one because the second one I think you've described.
The question about where you draw the line is a very hard one and I do not think I can or should answer it alone. Discussion is required to define it.
In short it is something along the lines I've described already - every part of the computer design should be transparent and open for inspection to call it a freedom respecting solution.
>Is it sufficient if all code executing on a Turing-complete CPU is open? Does the CPU itself need to be open RTL? What about the synthesis process to turn that into a netlist and then into a chip design, does that need to be open? What about the standard cell library from the chip foundry, does that need to be open? Then what about the actual foundry process - do you need documentation on how the chips are produced? What about all the raw materials? What about the machines used to make the chips? Basically all answers there are Yes. Again what it means in practice should be discussed but basically any reasonable person including you and anyone with your level of expertise should be able to say honestly that, yes indeed this computer is under full control of the owner and the owner only. It has no backdoor or ability to be remotely updated without the owner intention.
I think your question implies that there is one line to draw. If so then it is the one I've described above but I think it is better to draw a few lines with levels of freedom provided and mark every computer produced accordingly.
>Nuance matters. Absolutist positions don't work any more.
Do they? Wouldn't you say that Apple have a full control over their Mac M1? You are working with it so you should know exactly the answer to that question. With all their compromises the main door is under their full control and they hold they key to themselves, correct me if I am wrong.
If you ask today in practical terms what is a reasonable line to draw, let's draw it where Apple have done it except the key should be in the hands of the owner, not Apple. How about that? Would it satisfy? Actually you are the first one to ask about a proper line to draw but you should be honest about. You should be able to say "yes, this computer is under my full control" just like now Apple can say it's under their control and they guard it very carefully so perhaps they have figured where the line is.
> Again what it means in practice should be discussed but basically any reasonable person including you and anyone with your level of expertise should be able to say honestly that, yes indeed this computer is under full control of the owner and the owner only. It has no backdoor or ability to be remotely updated without the owner intention.
That, unfortunately, is impossible for silicon platforms. Documentation can't prove the lack of a backdoor, because you can't prove that the chip you got is what was documented (even if you have a scanning electron microscope and a lot of time, that's a destructive process and you can't prove that the chip you'll actually use is the same as the one you analyzed).
This is a common fallacy espoused by those who demand ultimate freedom: that along with it comes full trust and control. It doesn't. Because physics. Chips aren't software.
Instead, you should be investing in one of these:
https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/precursor
Precursor makes the quite solid argument that general purpose FPGA backdoors are infeasible (because it's an intractable problem for arbitrary logic circuits) and therefore it is a device that can be trusted even if the silicon can't. Of course, then you'd better be happy running all your computing on a 100MHz RISC-V.
> Do they? Wouldn't you say that Apple have a full control over their Mac M1?
Given that it's sitting on my desk, it's running my own OS, there is no Apple code running on it with full system access by the time it boots into Linux, and Apple can't remotely update it (the bootloader doesn't even have USB support let alone networking, and there is no resident supervisor like there is on Intel machines, Android phones, etc), no, I'm pretty sure I have full control over it for all normal practical purposes.
In fact I'm much more sure about that than I would be with the laptops the FSF peddles as "respects your freedom"; last time I looked at the schematics for one of those, it had over a half dozen chips running secret blobs, and at least two or three of them had full access to all system RAM via a DMA capable bus. You'd have to be insane to trust that over an M1, which is designed to sandbox all coprocessors from the main CPU and RAM via IOMMUs, such that even if all firmware is backdoored it can't take over your main CPU.
Is it perfect? No, if I wipe the Flash without a backup the recovery process requires phoning home to Apple, since that's how it re-downloads things like certificates, calibration data, MAC addresses, etc (though at least we have open source tools that implement all that and you can run on Linux). But that's a repairability/longevity argument; while the thing has a proper bootloader installed, it isn't phoning home anywhere during normal operation.
Then again, for those FSF laptops, if you wipe Flash you need a soldering iron to recover them, so from that point of view the M1s are a lot more robust, since you can recover them via USB from any other random machine, no disassembly required.
This is why nuance matters. Absolutist positions like the FSF's and yours lead to less trust, because reality isn't absolute, it's nuanced. If you want absolute trust, you can pre-order a Precursor today. If you want a laptop class machine you can reasonably trust not to be backdoored, you'd do much better getting an M1 than the obsolete ThinkPads the FSF certified, which don't even have modern security features like IOMMUs and have known blobs with full control over the computer. I can't prove the M1 doesn't have any secret silicon backdoors but at least the design is clearly intended to prevent firmware ones, and there are no known bypasses, which can't be said of those ThinkPads.
> If you ask today in practical terms what is a reasonable line to draw, let's draw it where Apple have done it except the key should be in the hands of the owner, not Apple. How about that? Would it satisfy?
That is a very difficult question to answer. Would hacker me like a device where I can burn in my own iBoot signing keys? Sure. Devices where you can do that kind of thing exist; you can get SoC dev kits (e.g. I know the Nvidia Tegra X1 devkit can do it) where you can burn your own keys permanently and become the trust authority, and I wouldn't be surprised if it can be done on open designs like Novena, though it may not be documented. Is it a good idea for the general public? No. The problem is building a platform that is "fully user controlled" (whatever that means, usually "everything that runs after the Boot ROM") means delegating an immense amount of responsibility to the user, which is at odds with security paradigms that attempt to protect you from higher level attackers. Can you build a signing and key storage facility on par with the security of Apple's? Highly unlikely. So yes, you might have full control over the device, but you're getting less security against other attackers as a result. The reason Apple can build a user friendly yet secure device is because they control the early boot stages, so they can build the complex mechanisms on top that make that possible; full control, secure, user friendly: pick two.
Can Apple sell me a backdoored M1? Yes. But the entire point of their design is that nobody else can backdoor it for me. Not even you, if you get ahold of it. Their user-controlled secureboot delegation requires authenticating using your machine owner credentials to install your own kernel, after having asserted physical presence, unless you wipe the whole machine and start fresh. And even then you can't backdoor the recovery mode used to do this, so you couldn't backdoor someone using the Asahi Linux installer since it runs from that secure recovery. Their design is such that compromised third party chips can't compromise the main system. You can't backdoor the motherboard and replace the flash. Etc. You have to trust Apple to an extent, but in exchange you're much safer from threats from other parties than with other machines. You can buy a second hand M1 Mac and be very confident it's every bit as secure as one straight from the Apple store. That is something that cannot be said for the vast majority of consumer hardware.
Those are all worthy things to have. Is it worth the trade-off of letting Apple control the early boot stages? I think it is for many people. Is it possible to build a system with identical security guarantees that is simultaneously fully user controlled and doesn't require every user to have a secure lab, HSM cluster, etc to achieve the same level of threat resistance? I don't know. Maybe. I invite you to try to come up with such a design; it would be very interesting to hear about it :)
The good news is that security is composable. That means that, for example, if I use LUKS encryption from Linux on top of the native hardware keystore and encryption, I know I have top notch security against third party attackers and I know I'm safe from Apple helping some government entity to crack it if they seize it, since they won't be able to break the second encryption layer (and I'm very confident they don't have any remote access backdoors for normal usage, so I'm safe from post facto active targeting since they just have no way of doing that when the thing is running my own OS).
And the fact that I just wrote a wall of text about this is, again, evidence that nuance matters. You can't reduce any of this to "do I control the signing keys" or "does it have any blobs". I'm sure some people will read my story and decide they don't want to touch the M1 machines with a 10 foot pole, and would rather get a Novena or a Pinebook or whatever. And others will be very excited and want to get one ASAP, because it's massively more trustable than any recent Intel or AMD machine by design. And the only way you can decide is if you know the facts and how the machine works and what the threats are and who you need to trust and so on and so forth. A "Respects your Freedom" sticker tells you nothing.
That, unfortunately, is impossible for silicon platforms. Documentation can't prove the lack of a backdoor, because you can't prove that the chip you got is what was documented (even if you have a scanning electron microscope and a lot of time, that's a destructive process and you can't prove that the chip you'll actually use is the same as the one you analyzed).
This is a common fallacy espoused by those who demand ultimate freedom: that along with it comes full trust and control. It doesn't. Because physics. Chips aren't software.
Instead, you should be investing in one of these:
https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/precursor
Precursor makes the quite solid argument that general purpose FPGA backdoors are infeasible (because it's an intractable problem for arbitrary logic circuits) and therefore it is a device that can be trusted even if the silicon can't. Of course, then you'd better be happy running all your computing on a 100MHz RISC-V.
> Do they? Wouldn't you say that Apple have a full control over their Mac M1?
Given that it's sitting on my desk, it's running my own OS, there is no Apple code running on it with full system access by the time it boots into Linux, and Apple can't remotely update it (the bootloader doesn't even have USB support let alone networking, and there is no resident supervisor like there is on Intel machines, Android phones, etc), no, I'm pretty sure I have full control over it for all normal practical purposes.
In fact I'm much more sure about that than I would be with the laptops the FSF peddles as "respects your freedom"; last time I looked at the schematics for one of those, it had over a half dozen chips running secret blobs, and at least two or three of them had full access to all system RAM via a DMA capable bus. You'd have to be insane to trust that over an M1, which is designed to sandbox all coprocessors from the main CPU and RAM via IOMMUs, such that even if all firmware is backdoored it can't take over your main CPU.
Is it perfect? No, if I wipe the Flash without a backup the recovery process requires phoning home to Apple, since that's how it re-downloads things like certificates, calibration data, MAC addresses, etc (though at least we have open source tools that implement all that and you can run on Linux). But that's a repairability/longevity argument; while the thing has a proper bootloader installed, it isn't phoning home anywhere during normal operation.
Then again, for those FSF laptops, if you wipe Flash you need a soldering iron to recover them, so from that point of view the M1s are a lot more robust, since you can recover them via USB from any other random machine, no disassembly required.
This is why nuance matters. Absolutist positions like the FSF's and yours lead to less trust, because reality isn't absolute, it's nuanced. If you want absolute trust, you can pre-order a Precursor today. If you want a laptop class machine you can reasonably trust not to be backdoored, you'd do much better getting an M1 than the obsolete ThinkPads the FSF certified, which don't even have modern security features like IOMMUs and have known blobs with full control over the computer. I can't prove the M1 doesn't have any secret silicon backdoors but at least the design is clearly intended to prevent firmware ones, and there are no known bypasses, which can't be said of those ThinkPads.
> If you ask today in practical terms what is a reasonable line to draw, let's draw it where Apple have done it except the key should be in the hands of the owner, not Apple. How about that? Would it satisfy?
That is a very difficult question to answer. Would hacker me like a device where I can burn in my own iBoot signing keys? Sure. Devices where you can do that kind of thing exist; you can get SoC dev kits (e.g. I know the Nvidia Tegra X1 devkit can do it) where you can burn your own keys permanently and become the trust authority, and I wouldn't be surprised if it can be done on open designs like Novena, though it may not be documented. Is it a good idea for the general public? No. The problem is building a platform that is "fully user controlled" (whatever that means, usually "everything that runs after the Boot ROM") means delegating an immense amount of responsibility to the user, which is at odds with security paradigms that attempt to protect you from higher level attackers. Can you build a signing and key storage facility on par with the security of Apple's? Highly unlikely. So yes, you might have full control over the device, but you're getting less security against other attackers as a result. The reason Apple can build a user friendly yet secure device is because they control the early boot stages, so they can build the complex mechanisms on top that make that possible; full control, secure, user friendly: pick two.
Can Apple sell me a backdoored M1? Yes. But the entire point of their design is that nobody else can backdoor it for me. Not even you, if you get ahold of it. Their user-controlled secureboot delegation requires authenticating using your machine owner credentials to install your own kernel, after having asserted physical presence, unless you wipe the whole machine and start fresh. And even then you can't backdoor the recovery mode used to do this, so you couldn't backdoor someone using the Asahi Linux installer since it runs from that secure recovery. Their design is such that compromised third party chips can't compromise the main system. You can't backdoor the motherboard and replace the flash. Etc. You have to trust Apple to an extent, but in exchange you're much safer from threats from other parties than with other machines. You can buy a second hand M1 Mac and be very confident it's every bit as secure as one straight from the Apple store. That is something that cannot be said for the vast majority of consumer hardware.
Those are all worthy things to have. Is it worth the trade-off of letting Apple control the early boot stages? I think it is for many people. Is it possible to build a system with identical security guarantees that is simultaneously fully user controlled and doesn't require every user to have a secure lab, HSM cluster, etc to achieve the same level of threat resistance? I don't know. Maybe. I invite you to try to come up with such a design; it would be very interesting to hear about it :)
The good news is that security is composable. That means that, for example, if I use LUKS encryption from Linux on top of the native hardware keystore and encryption, I know I have top notch security against third party attackers and I know I'm safe from Apple helping some government entity to crack it if they seize it, since they won't be able to break the second encryption layer (and I'm very confident they don't have any remote access backdoors for normal usage, so I'm safe from post facto active targeting since they just have no way of doing that when the thing is running my own OS).
And the fact that I just wrote a wall of text about this is, again, evidence that nuance matters. You can't reduce any of this to "do I control the signing keys" or "does it have any blobs". I'm sure some people will read my story and decide they don't want to touch the M1 machines with a 10 foot pole, and would rather get a Novena or a Pinebook or whatever. And others will be very excited and want to get one ASAP, because it's massively more trustable than any recent Intel or AMD machine by design. And the only way you can decide is if you know the facts and how the machine works and what the threats are and who you need to trust and so on and so forth. A "Respects your Freedom" sticker tells you nothing.
I do not know if you ever lived under dictatorship but the most popular argument of dictatorship is 'There are Nuances' , 'Be wise, nothing is absolute' and 'Freedom is not the answer'. I would not wish to blame you for anything because I value your efforts and the worst thing I could assume: it's your honest mistake.
Of course nothing is absolute but it doesn't mean that we should be that wise to miss the main point with all nuances and be fooled like idiots to accept things that should never be acceptable. Nuances do matter but only after the main thing is defined and protected.
I am sorry but in that case with all your expertise knowledge and nuances you seem to miss the main thing which is a tendency to close every platform and make it controlled remotely or brick it otherwise stripping the owner from the computer respecting freedom completely.
Apple computers were able to boot from the usb now they don't. I am aware about nuances but you cannot boot in DFU something other then their thing unless they permit it, isnt' it?
Could they do it differently? I presume yes. They choose it to be exactly this way and they choose it to be this way just to keep control because they perfectly know where line is . They keep the very control they could and should give to the owner if he chooses so but they didn't and they didn't because the whole tendency is to make people slowly accept the idea of closed/remotely controlled platform.
Their iphone/ipads are closed completely just because they have found a way to make it acceptable by people. They can't do it with Macs ... for now. They are not idiots and they understand that if they close Macs today they will meet strong opposition with the chance that people would reject to use it completely. And they made a lot of efforts using 'nuances' tactics to make sure that one who wish to fool himself would find a way to do it by saying - look it is not perfect but they are trying to keep it open and there are nuances. Nevertheless they have managed to push things that never perceived as the norm like phoning home for some parameters, this 'secure' (for them) bootloader that owner doesn't have a choice to turn off or this DFU requiring another Mac to boot. What the F is that? Why can't I boot from usb without other Mac? Why there should be some hacking to achieve something like that? Could they do it differently? Of course they could but they didn't and they didn't on purpose because 'frog boiling' is in progress.
>But that's a repairability/longevity argument; while the thing has a proper bootloader installed, it isn't phoning home anywhere during normal operation.
Today, what about tomorrow?
>Can Apple sell me a backdoored M1? Yes. But the entire point of their design is that nobody else can backdoor it for me. Not even you, if you get ahold of it. Their user-controlled secureboot delegation requires authenticating using your machine owner credentials to install your own kernel, after having asserted physical presence, unless you wipe the whole machine and start fresh. And even then you can't backdoor the recovery mode used to do this, so you couldn't backdoor someone using the Asahi Linux installer since it runs from that secure recovery. Their design is such that compromised third party chips can't compromise the main system. You can't backdoor the motherboard and replace the flash. Etc. You have to trust Apple to an extent,
My concerns about third party in general and third party chips are much less then my concerns about Apple itself. Why should one afraid third party less then Apple? What is the difference? Apple as far as I am concerned IS third party as much as another third party is because they can communicate between them and they do such things and Apple is known to accept shit from dictatorships.
"You have to trust Apple to an extent" NO, I do not have to. We do not have to. They should be obligated to deliver something that doesn't require that after their product is shipped. We should demand from suppliers to supply something that doesn't require their control and it should be illegal if they introduce something like that.Only then they could be potentially "trusted" to the certain extent.
>Can you build a signing and key storage facility on par with the security of Apple's? Highly unlikely. So yes, you might have full control over the device, but you're getting less security against other attackers as a result.
What if I prefer that and not some 'big daddy' caring about my safety more then I do? Freedom does matter and it IS the answer and it comes with responsibility. THIS is the main issue here. THIS is what separates society with responsible citizens from the society with 'naive children' who wish to trade their freedom for 'safety' resulting in loosing both.
Of course nothing is absolute but it doesn't mean that we should be that wise to miss the main point with all nuances and be fooled like idiots to accept things that should never be acceptable. Nuances do matter but only after the main thing is defined and protected.
I am sorry but in that case with all your expertise knowledge and nuances you seem to miss the main thing which is a tendency to close every platform and make it controlled remotely or brick it otherwise stripping the owner from the computer respecting freedom completely.
Apple computers were able to boot from the usb now they don't. I am aware about nuances but you cannot boot in DFU something other then their thing unless they permit it, isnt' it?
Could they do it differently? I presume yes. They choose it to be exactly this way and they choose it to be this way just to keep control because they perfectly know where line is . They keep the very control they could and should give to the owner if he chooses so but they didn't and they didn't because the whole tendency is to make people slowly accept the idea of closed/remotely controlled platform.
Their iphone/ipads are closed completely just because they have found a way to make it acceptable by people. They can't do it with Macs ... for now. They are not idiots and they understand that if they close Macs today they will meet strong opposition with the chance that people would reject to use it completely. And they made a lot of efforts using 'nuances' tactics to make sure that one who wish to fool himself would find a way to do it by saying - look it is not perfect but they are trying to keep it open and there are nuances. Nevertheless they have managed to push things that never perceived as the norm like phoning home for some parameters, this 'secure' (for them) bootloader that owner doesn't have a choice to turn off or this DFU requiring another Mac to boot. What the F is that? Why can't I boot from usb without other Mac? Why there should be some hacking to achieve something like that? Could they do it differently? Of course they could but they didn't and they didn't on purpose because 'frog boiling' is in progress.
>But that's a repairability/longevity argument; while the thing has a proper bootloader installed, it isn't phoning home anywhere during normal operation.
Today, what about tomorrow?
>Can Apple sell me a backdoored M1? Yes. But the entire point of their design is that nobody else can backdoor it for me. Not even you, if you get ahold of it. Their user-controlled secureboot delegation requires authenticating using your machine owner credentials to install your own kernel, after having asserted physical presence, unless you wipe the whole machine and start fresh. And even then you can't backdoor the recovery mode used to do this, so you couldn't backdoor someone using the Asahi Linux installer since it runs from that secure recovery. Their design is such that compromised third party chips can't compromise the main system. You can't backdoor the motherboard and replace the flash. Etc. You have to trust Apple to an extent,
My concerns about third party in general and third party chips are much less then my concerns about Apple itself. Why should one afraid third party less then Apple? What is the difference? Apple as far as I am concerned IS third party as much as another third party is because they can communicate between them and they do such things and Apple is known to accept shit from dictatorships.
"You have to trust Apple to an extent" NO, I do not have to. We do not have to. They should be obligated to deliver something that doesn't require that after their product is shipped. We should demand from suppliers to supply something that doesn't require their control and it should be illegal if they introduce something like that.Only then they could be potentially "trusted" to the certain extent.
>Can you build a signing and key storage facility on par with the security of Apple's? Highly unlikely. So yes, you might have full control over the device, but you're getting less security against other attackers as a result.
What if I prefer that and not some 'big daddy' caring about my safety more then I do? Freedom does matter and it IS the answer and it comes with responsibility. THIS is the main issue here. THIS is what separates society with responsible citizens from the society with 'naive children' who wish to trade their freedom for 'safety' resulting in loosing both.
I had typed up a full point by point reply, but honestly,
> naive children
If you're going to end with ad hominem attacks, you don't deserve it. You've made it clear to everyone here what kind of person you are, and I shouldn't be wasting my time replying.
(Also, your comment history suggests you own an M1 Air since you were commenting about PWM flicker and QEMU VMs... so maybe check out a mirror before insulting people who choose to buy these machines)
> naive children
If you're going to end with ad hominem attacks, you don't deserve it. You've made it clear to everyone here what kind of person you are, and I shouldn't be wasting my time replying.
(Also, your comment history suggests you own an M1 Air since you were commenting about PWM flicker and QEMU VMs... so maybe check out a mirror before insulting people who choose to buy these machines)
[deleted]
A consistent approach would forbid any use of Intel, AMD, or ARM processors (proprietary microcode in all of them) as well as any wireless technology (again, proprietary firmware). But the FSF has decided that if they can pretend that any proprietary code is somehow unchangeable hardware, or if not, if they don't tell people how to change it or if they even encourage vendors to prevent changing it, this somehow supports freedom.
Or they're incentivizing firmware-less or open-firmware devices, while drawing a line where people can still choose certain devices that meet their purpose.
But they aren't doing that; their Respects Your Freedom program is chock full of devices that run giant firmware blobs, which they conveniently ignore as long as they're on-device and not loaded from /lib/firmware, because as long as nobody notices they can keep believing they're living a blob-free life...
Things the FSF has explicitly incentivized:
- Moving firmware blobs from an obvious, inspectable place in the OS or bootloder to obscure firmware ROMs or Flash chips read by a convoluted process involving multiple CPUs, because somehow doing the latter makes it freedom-respecting? (Librem 5 story)
- Physically destroying optional hardware that currently cannot be used without blobs, so users are not tempted to use those blobs, regardless of whether free alternatives might appear in the future (spoiler alert: they did) (Stallman trying to get bunnie to permanently disable the GPU in the Novena free hardware/software laptop to get certified).
Things the FSF has explicitly incentivized:
- Moving firmware blobs from an obvious, inspectable place in the OS or bootloder to obscure firmware ROMs or Flash chips read by a convoluted process involving multiple CPUs, because somehow doing the latter makes it freedom-respecting? (Librem 5 story)
- Physically destroying optional hardware that currently cannot be used without blobs, so users are not tempted to use those blobs, regardless of whether free alternatives might appear in the future (spoiler alert: they did) (Stallman trying to get bunnie to permanently disable the GPU in the Novena free hardware/software laptop to get certified).
Yeah, that makes little sense. Ideally you would want to point users to documented hardware, running QMK, or other (potentially reversed engineered) open-firmware.
I got into Trisquel briefly about a decade ago. I first noticed that YouTube wouldn't work. You could download some packages from the debian repository to get that working, but because that isn't free software, nobody would explain how. Instead they'd just lecture you on free software. I get it, but at the same time it makes your computer unusable for a lot of things. It's a hard line to tread.
> there is a good chance several devices/peripherals will fail to perform as intended
For the record, I use Trisquel and it didn't recognize my wifi adapter. I went to the forums and someone said you need special libre wifi adapters that work with Linux. However, my internal network adapter worked fine. It plays well with most ethernet adapters thankfully.
For the record, I use Trisquel and it didn't recognize my wifi adapter. I went to the forums and someone said you need special libre wifi adapters that work with Linux. However, my internal network adapter worked fine. It plays well with most ethernet adapters thankfully.
The vast majority of WiFi adapters work fine with Linux and linux-firmware. You only need special "libre" ("firmwareless"*) WiFi adapters if you want them to work with linux-libre and distros that use it like this one, since it cripples support for anything that requires firmware.
* Most "firmwareless" devices have firmware ROMs anyway. The FSF only believe it counts as nonfree if the users can see the firmware in /lib/firmware; they are happy to endorse products with hundreds of kilobytes of nonfree firmware ROM as "respects your freedom", since users can't see the blobs.
* Most "firmwareless" devices have firmware ROMs anyway. The FSF only believe it counts as nonfree if the users can see the firmware in /lib/firmware; they are happy to endorse products with hundreds of kilobytes of nonfree firmware ROM as "respects your freedom", since users can't see the blobs.
Yes, the FSF thinks a device becomes more free if you destroy the ability to update the software that runs on it.
WiFi presents a particular problem for free software because to sell a product that emits radio waves, it has to be certified (by the FCC or other national authorities), and they won't certify something that could be trivially reprogrammed to exceed legal power limitations or broadcast outside licensed frequencies. It's easiest for them if the user can't change those details at all.
WiFi presents a particular problem for free software because to sell a product that emits radio waves, it has to be certified (by the FCC or other national authorities), and they won't certify something that could be trivially reprogrammed to exceed legal power limitations or broadcast outside licensed frequencies. It's easiest for them if the user can't change those details at all.
Think of it as a reference implementation that, in a perfect world, hardware vendors would proudly target.
Hardware manufacturers can ideologically target the libre flavor, but in practice it is next to impossible to deliver. Drivers are built to address specific hardware features. As features grow, so do system complexities and software calls. Every OEM addresses a feature in a specific problem-solving paradigm. Trying to unify most hardware under a standard set of function & procedure calls cannot be fathomed.
A real world analogy is to make shoes of a single size and color & expect every person in the world can use it comfortably irrespective of their size or body type.
A real world analogy is to make shoes of a single size and color & expect every person in the world can use it comfortably irrespective of their size or body type.
I don't follow; linux-libre still has drivers; nobody's saying you can't write per-device drivers, just that the whole of the code to run it should be FOSS.
I think I failed to explain the crucial part of the argument so let me try from another viewpoint: OEM like NVIDIA do not make their drivers FOSS because it makes device-specific features and improvements known. To make something work well for the device as well as FOSS, they would have to publish the software instructions specifics. That sort of things enables competition to better understand their silicon and thats exactly what they do not want.
In an ideal world, libre is fine and serves all devices well. But with commercial interest in play and so many differentiation in features, it is hard to imagine libre drivers being able to cater to all device optimally
In an ideal world, libre is fine and serves all devices well. But with commercial interest in play and so many differentiation in features, it is hard to imagine libre drivers being able to cater to all device optimally
This distro still has drivers, it just requires those to be libre too. Every linux driver written (and also firmware/microcode) could be included, but that would require those to also be licensed as libre. It does not have any more technical restrictions, only legal and licensing ones.
Those people are super shy about what their system is based on, which packages are available, and what is unique to Trisquel.
From what I could find out, it seems to be another Ubuntu-based system, but with all non-free parts disabled. Is there anything more to it?
From what I could find out, it seems to be another Ubuntu-based system, but with all non-free parts disabled. Is there anything more to it?
That's what almost every project advertising it is free of non-free stuff is: some other project with the non-free parts removed, nothing more. Trisquel (Ubuntu), linux-libre (linux), libreboot (coreboot), etc. When your sole selling point is lack of non-free stuff, there is no need to invest time adding anything else.
E.g. linux-libre is just a big script that removes the nonfree parts and firmware support; they just run it against every kernel release with minor tweaks and that's their new release. libreboot is similar.
E.g. linux-libre is just a big script that removes the nonfree parts and firmware support; they just run it against every kernel release with minor tweaks and that's their new release. libreboot is similar.
What about osboot, the new project by the libreboot author?
osboot is much more pragmatic, since it doesn't try to be 100% free of blobs but rather chooses platform support over that. AIUI it is partially a response to just how utterly useless libreboot had become (it can't support any recent platform).
Debian/Ubuntu seems the default, but projects could be more clear. Package management is my first question.
Trisquel is quite a usable distro for laptops that are 3-4 years old if you have an appropriate wireless card - Atheros 9xxx series cards tend to work well as the ath9k driver is FOSS. That's really the only blocker most people encounter. Why run this over Debian Stable (without adding "non-free" sources) I couldn't tell you. Debian tends to be more up to date than Trisquel since it's usually based on the previous Ubuntu LTS.