Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
GNU is Not Unix Portables Hardware Your Rights Online

Free Software Foundation Endorses a "Truly Free" Laptop 340

Posted by timothy
from the high-standards dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Free Software Foundation announced today the first laptop they have been able to certify as-is that respects the user's freedoms. The laptop is free down to using Coreboot in place of a proprietary BIOS. The OS shipped on the laptop is Trisquel, the Ubuntu derived Linux OS that removes all traces of proprietary firmware, patented formats, etc. The only issue though for new customers is this endorsed laptop comes down to being a refurbished 2006 ThinkPad X60 with single or dual-core Intel CPU, 1GB+ of RAM, 60GB+ HDD, and a 1024x768 12.1-inch screen, while costing $320+ USD (200 GBP). The FSF-certified refurbished laptops are only offered for sale through the Gluglug UK shop. Are these outdated specs worth your privacy and freedom?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Free Software Foundation Endorses a "Truly Free" Laptop

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 19, 2013 @03:10PM (#45738801)

    Or "Made in the USA" for that matter.

  • Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)

    by spikeb (966663) on Thursday December 19, 2013 @03:47PM (#45739229)
    actually, the FSF uses javascript and has licenses appropriate for it,
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 19, 2013 @04:14PM (#45739571)

    Well, that's stupid. Microcode updates are intimately tied to the CPU architecture and stepping, and are not really code in the sense that you probably think of it. Microcode "programs" parts of the CPU on a very low level, much lower than even assembly. If you don't trust the microcode, how can you trust the CPU itself?

  • Re:Liberated CPUs (Score:1, Informative)

    by weilawei (897823) on Thursday December 19, 2013 @04:21PM (#45739659) Homepage
    You're on the wrong website. This is a site where the average reader actually know what stuff like that means.
  • by ciaran_o_riordan (662132) on Thursday December 19, 2013 @06:59PM (#45741373) Homepage

    > And none of those things were done by the FSF itself.

    We have a GUI desktop because FSF launched four projects to make one.

    The first became GNUstep (a success, but not enoughso), the second didn't produce a desktop but did produce Guile.

    Then KDE was launched, with the then-proprietary QT toolkit. The problem was so urgent that FSF launched two projects to fix it, GNOME and Harmony. Harmony was a project to replace the QT toolkit, but it wasn't a success.

    GNOME was a success. So much of a success that it was, IMO, what lead to QT being freed. So we've FSF to thank for directly making GNOME, and indirectly for licence changes in QT.

    (And then there's the fact that FSF made the developer tools and licences which helped a lot of other projects come into being.)

    But as usual, people try to avoid crediting FSF, so a lot of people don't know this.

  • Then KDE was launched, with the then-proprietary QT toolkit. The problem was so urgent that FSF launched two projects to fix it, GNOME and Harmony. Harmony was a project to replace the QT toolkit, but it wasn't a success.

    Gnome wasn't started by the FSF itself, but by Miguel de Icaza While it has a recursive name referencing GNU it' isn't one of their projects. It uses the GTK tookit, which was created by a university, University of California at Berkeley, not the FSF. Besides, the Nautilus file manager was developed by a for-profit company called Eazel...look it up:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME [wikipedia.org]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eazel [wikipedia.org]

    Another for profit company founded by Icaza, Helix/Ximian also did much work on GNOME

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ximian [wikipedia.org]

    GNOME was a success. So much of a success that it was, IMO, what lead to QT being freed. So we've FSF to thank for directly making GNOME, and indirectly for licence changes in QT.

    That must be why in 2009, RMS called Miguel de Icaza a "Traitor to the Free Software Community"

    But as usual, people try to avoid crediting FSF, so a lot of people don't know this.

    Yes, the FSF and GNU project deserves some credit, for creating the tools, but beyond that...just beause those tools are used to create other things, doesn't mean we should kowtow to Stallman for every thing made using those tools.

Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. -- F. Brooks, "The Mythical Man-Month"

Working...