As per fsf only those linux distributions are 100% free:
Dragora
Dyne
Guix
Hyperbola
Parabola
PureOS
Trisquel
Ututo
libreCMC
ProteanOS
Do you agree or no?
I see a lot of people that want to switch from windows to a linux distro or a open os. But from what i see they tend to migrate to another black boxed/closed os.
What is a trully free os that doesnt included any closed code/binary blobs/closed drivers etc.
Just 100% free open code, no traps.
What are the options and what should one go with if they want fully free os that rejects any closed code?
Probably OpenBSD NetBSD
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.
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.
This. When RISC V hardware starts being more common and decently priced (price/perf), sure, I’ll happily go all open. Till then running with half my hardware broken doesn’t really do me any favors
My priority in what I use is for it to work out-of-the-box, be secure, and not get in my way. For security reasons I do support the concept of 100% open-source purity (though I’m much softer on or even opposed to the “free” part of FOSS), but I’m not prepared to sacrifice convenience for that cause.
You know it’s explicitly not “free as in beer” right?
In theory. In practice being free to use, share, modify, and redistribute it makes it in practice “free as in beer”. I am aware that projects are technically allowed to charge money for an iso file and the like.
The FSF has an ass-backwards approach to firmware, leading to only these distros fulfilling their requirements.
Their preference for firmware is as follows:
- Firmware that’s open source (fair enough)
- Firmware that can’t be updated (i.e. devices that are flashed once at the factory)
- Firmware that can be updated (CPU microcode, firmware for GPUs, SSDs, etc)
As Linux includes patching of CPU microcode on boot (to fix security vulnerabilities and bugs) the default build of Linux doesn’t fulfill those requirements.
Honestly, I am grateful that the FSF is a bit more strict in this definition. While I do not care too much about this, I think it is good that we have some ideal to follow and look forward. And its good, because anyone who wants to go that route, have a community and direction.
Disagree. Their priorities are backwards.
Company A releases a product, it runs closed-source proprietary firmware on-board, and it can’t be updated by the user even if bugs or compatibility issues are found later on in the product’s life cycle.
Company B releases a product, it runs closed-source proprietary firmware on-board, but it can be updated by the user if bugs or compatibility issues are found later on in the product’s life cycle.
According to the FSF, product A gets the stamp of approval, product B doesn’t. That makes no sense.
I have seen enough devices get kneecapped by the manufacturer after release to know that the FSF’s viewpoint is the correct one.
Idealism is fine.
Braindead self-denial less so.
How is proprietary firmware that cannot be updated superior?
The line the FSF draws between what is hardware and what is software is total nonsense
The FSF should stick to software so they can maintain the completely hard line that you value. That can apply to actual software.
There should maybe be a Free Hardware Foundation too (maybe a sister or sub-project). If that existed though, they would have to reject pretty much all the hardware that all of us use, including the hardware that the operating systems in this list were designed to run on. Because they are all completely proprietary regardless of their firmware update policies.
I would love a FHF. Let’s all use open schematic, RISC-V systems with open source firmware. Yes please!
But let’s stop doing dumb shit like refusing to update the microcode on our Intel CPU and pretending that is more free instead of just more dumb.
The way why the FSF approaches firmware today is totally braindead (in my view).
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 Iran, however, then I would exclusively run distros like that as well.
Edit: typo
We ate talking about:
- CPU Microcode
- Firmware for network and WiFi cards
Those are not just “some hardware will not work”. Currently, don’t using those blobs that you will have an vulnerable CPU but ad you are also offline that should be safe /sarcasm
We need purists like the fsf. They are truly fighting the good fight, but I am also happy to see people be just more free too, even with some compromise.
We need purists like the fsf.
I do not mind that they are purists. On this issue, my problem is that the line they draw between open and proprietary is an entirely meaningless one and yet the act as absolutist about it as everything else.
I do not mind that they are “pure”. I dislike that what they are saying is wrong (inaccurate, not morally wrong).
The operating system and up seems like a totally resonance place to draw the line for Free Software. I mean “software” is right in the name.
Making a big deal about firmware is asking me to pretend I do not know how hardware works and ignore that I am actually using totally proprietary tech regardless. And classifying hardware that is more open as less free just jumps the shark completely. It hear no evil, see no evil nonsense that demands that I never ask questions or look behind the curtain.
I do disagree with you. Proprietary firmware and proprietary hardware does make you less free. But if the rental agreement you have with them is good enough for you, why would I bash you for it, you know?
Its why RISCV is exciting in the CPU space to me. Its more free (even if the IP under it is proprietary). Every step we take towards it advanced the field to me. Again though, if you are renting any piece of the stack, it’s still better that you own what you can to do what you/want then just giving into the “you will own nothing” push.
Just gotta take the wins where we can, celebrate the work, and keep working, you know?
I agree, rhetoric like OP’s framing a non-FOSS distro as ‘just another closed source/black boxed OS’ reads like OP is suggesting it isn’t even worth migrating from Windows to say, Bazzite. Which is dangerous.
I’ll take a door I can peer into but has a few shadows over a completely closed door anyday.
I think using major distros like Fedora, Ubuntu, or Debian is fine, because corporate backing often supports faster security fixes and better infrastructure.
Fedora and Debian are 100% free operating systems that only include free software.
The FSF does not like them because they include non-free firmware.
The debate is entirely how you define what is software and what is hardware.
How is it 100% free if it has non free firmware? Lol.
Your hardware is most likely not free and open source. If you use non-free hardware, it is better to have security fixes then leave it unpatched. If you are using non-free hardware it doesn’t matter how free your distro is, you still must depend on hardware blackboxes. Your hardware can directly interact with your distro and do something malicious regardless of the presence of firmware blobs.
Those distros (Fefora & Debian) are fully free, but acknowledge that hardware isn’t in most cases. And like responsible and reasonable developers they choose what is best for stability and security.
Exactly, the Intel TPM is almost certainly a literal NSA backdoor, as claimed by the Chinese government (which would explain Microsoft giving up Windows market share by requiring that for Win 11). When your CPU has its own network stack in a secure enclave that is inherently its own OS basically, how does running a pure open source OS on top of that mitigate anything?
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.
Calling Debian stable another black boxed closed OS is just rage bait.
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.
driver firmware does not count?
ofc it does.
it is just your opinion and it holds also no weight with me too
Trisquel is an Ubuntu base, with all non-free and binary-blobs removed.
Any spyware, data harvesting, tracking, advertising, or hidden code has been removed.
This also means some hardware will not work under Trisquel, because that hardware relied on drivers which were a blob of unreadable code.
–
I think everyone running Linux should try an FSF endorsed distro, and have it as a general goal to move towards over time. The easy way, is to try it first on a LiveUSB or in a VM.
To really see these distros shine, they need to be used on hardware that has open-drivers available.
To find functional open-hardware, you can use the same hardware models that various online, libre, hardware-retailers are using, such as:
Or trawl through h-node.org to decipher what may work.
–
A second 100% libre laptop or box is a good idea for sensitive or personal content.
I have to answer to this post directly… First of all: I am a member of the European free software foundation. I am since over 10 years.
Using those distributions is, sadly, a security risk!
Everybody must be absolutely clear about the fact that CPU microcode updates are property blobs, and therefore removed by those projects.
This means: Your CPU runs with only the build in firmware and is most likely vulnerable against many CPU level attacks. CPU bugs can only be fixed with microcode , and if you drop those from the systems you leave the systems vulnerable.
Full free software distributions are a important, but very esoteric.
OP claims even the kernel itself is non free software. So let me just cite the kernel archive
Is Linux Kernel Free Software?
Linux kernel is released under the terms of GNU GPL version 2 and is therefore Free Software as defined by the Free Software Foundation.
I heard that Linux ships with non-free “blobs”
Before many devices are able to communicate with the OS, they must first be initialized with the “firmware” provided by the device manufacturer. This firmware is not part of Linux and isn’t “executed” by the kernel – it is merely uploaded to the device during the driver initialization stage.
While some firmware images are built from free software, a large subset of it is only available for redistribution in binary-only form. To avoid any licensing confusion, firmware blobs were moved from the main Linux tree into a separate repository called linux-firmware.
It is possible to use Linux without any non-free firmware binaries, but usually at the cost of rendering a lot of hardware inoperable. Furthermore, many devices that do not require a firmware blob during driver initialization simply already come with non-free firmware preinstalled on them. If your goal is to run a 100% free-as-in-freedom setup, you will often need to go a lot further than just avoiding loadable binary-only firmware blobs.
Calling a “regular” Linux desktop operating system being Black boxed or closed source is a bit too far in my opinion. I do not agree 100%, but I understand the concerns and points brought up in this discussion.
They’re 100% free in the sense that they don’t ship closed code, ever. That is the goal to attain. However, we’re not there yet. For that, hardware needs to be open. Hardware can’t be as easily be made by a group of volunteers as software. Like at all. To solve this ‘transient’ state, all popular distros allow adding some sort of ‘nonfree’ repo so that, you know, shit can work. For instance, you are free to install Debian and not enable the nonfree repo, which is not enabled by default. You are also free to wonder later why your webcam doesn’t work, you can’t print, your bluetooth headset won’t pair and your fancy gaming GPU outputs 10 FPS @800x600.
