Free Software Foundation Endorses a "Truly Free" Laptop 340
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 Are these outdated specs worth your privacy and freedom?"
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Truly free", but with Intel inside(tm) (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously. I laughed.
Harddrive firmware? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the harddrive running open-source firmware too? How could I possibly store my data on a device that uses proprietary software?
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Umm, okay, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Creating free replacements for all non-free software is a monumental task that started many years ago, one that may never be complete. However, this is a milestone; the list of laptop models that are "truly free" can only expand from here, as can the includeable software. Have you seen the DD-WRT compatibility list recently? It was quite short a when that project was getting started.
FSF does free; they do step one, others step two (Score:5, Insightful)
> no understanding of the importances of "just works"
That's not their part of the job.
Various entities can label something as user-friendly. FSF is pretty much the only entity that can label stuff as free.
This is one laptop. Hopefully next year there'll be twenty, and then someone can take on the job of announcing which is the most user-friendly of the twenty free laptops.
Liberated CPUs (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, RMS goes w/ Loongson, so since the FSF is putting this together, why don't they just team up w/ Lemote, slap Trisquel (or gNewSense) on the laptop, fire it up w/ GNOME3, and put it out to market? Better yet, if they can find someone to fab the OpenRISC chip, or come out w/ an GPLed version of a SPARC (where its HDL designs are GPLed) and fab it, and design it into a laptop, w/ coreboot, they'll get what they want.
Remember, for an FSF endorsement, it doesn't need to be good, or even run end user software. It just needs to 'respect your freedom & privacy', so the solution above should do it.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's not truly free unless it comes with exactly zero mysterious binary blobs calling home (or NSA, which may be the same thing).
It's not truly free until it doesn't let you access Google-anything or Facebook or Amazon or pretty much everything else, because to access is to surrender.
The ultimate free laptop is a cat (for various definitions of Free which involve feeding, care and a robust catnip supply.)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:free hardware? (Score:3, Insightful)
We can't punish all murderers, what's the point of punishing any?
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
As an owner of a refurbished Thinkpad - from a German reseller of used laptops, not the company mentioned in the story - I can assure you that any old Thinkpad with GNU/Linux just works. Older Thinkpads are among the laptops with the best Linux support you can find. I use mine every day for 8 hours for years (and before that I used another old Thinkpad for years).
Regarding the other thing you mention, to be honest I have to admit that I have no idea what "value added" means. I've heard it occasionally but always though it was more like a meaningless buzzword or (worse) a synonym for pre-installed bloatware. What does it mean?
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
I get the sense that the FSF, though having some very good ideals, has no understanding of the importances of "just works" and "value added"
The FSF is like extreme overclockers. They are concerned with software freedom the way overclockers are concerned with cpu performance maximums, or drag racers are concerned with 1/4 mile times.
Criticising the FSF for pushing software freedom as far as they can is like criticising extreme overclockers for using bulky custom expensive cooling solutions, or drag racers for lousy cornering, and needing a parachute to stop.
Sure I'll probably never buy one of those devices, but I like that they are out there, and I support them, pushing the envelope. And even if I don't live right on the edge with them, preferring 'just works' to 'ideals' for a lot of day to day stuff, my 'just works' is a lot closer to 'ideals' than it would be without the FSF as a lot of that does trickle into what I use daily, even if I don't use it all, all the time.
I like the FSF pushing that envelope as far as they possibly can.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a strange definition of freedom.
A laptop with free hardware and free software let me do whatever with it, including signing up for pseudo-voluntary profiling in exchange for a meager chunk of ad ridden web service.
GNU licensed stuff poses additional restriction but those are aimed at the respect of others' freedom, in the same way that "do what you wish" makes a less free society than "do what you wish as long as it lets other do what they wish", no matter the smaller number of restrictions imposed.
Re:FSF does free; they do step one, others step tw (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a definition of fundamentalism, it certainly isn't the definition of fundamentalism that is common short-hand for extremist asshole. The FSF does not qualify for the extremist asshole definition, not by a long shot.
Re:"Truly free", but with Intel inside(tm) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
but for the FSF, all JavaScript is snooping, and shouldn't be allowed
Please point your browser to https://www.fsf.org/ [fsf.org] and view the source. Search the page for "" and see if the FSF really believes what you claim.
Re:FSF does free; they do step one, others step tw (Score:4, Insightful)
"Asshole?" No. "Extremist?" I'd say so. (But that's a feature, not a bug!)
Re:JavaScript trap (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:some will look for even the smallest error (Score:4, Insightful)
So I've got one person replying to me saying FSF is too "fundamentalist", and I've got you saying they're too lax and are letting too much slip through.
I'm not saying they are too lax - I know there are no open source hard drive firmwares (though there is some progress on Open SSD firmware [openssd-project.org]). I'm saying that they are being unclear on what they are delivering, they are saying "No proprietary firmware" when they know that portions of the computer do have
The general theme is that some people will look for even the smallest error just to avoid acknowledging good work.
Why do I say "probably" in my previous post? Because you and I don't know what the firmware in our microwaves do. It's probably fine. There haven't been any big microwave firmware scandals that I'm aware of. (And if I didn't say "probably", you'd say "How can you know?!")
Why do you keep comparing hard drive firmware with microwave firmware? My microwave doesn't see every bit of data I store on my hard drive, nor does it have full access to the physical RAM of my computer.
You keep saying "probably" because you really don't know what the hard drive firmware is doing. Which is fine, but don't dismiss it with "Well no one knows what it's doing and besides you can't do anything about it, so just ignore it".
Regarding FSF's statement, they said "no proprietary firmware options". Options. Whatever firmware could be removed has been removed.
Ahh, so there's no proprietary firmware except for the parts that use proprietary firmware. Well that's crystal clear and not misleading at all.
Is the HDD firmware a problem? I don't know. I don't know personally, and I don't know what FSF's take on it is.
If you feel that proprietary software infringes on your rights, how could closed source HDD firmware not be a problem?
But even if you did find some flaw, the right thing to do is say "Well, FSF is definitely 95%, and well done to them for their effort, but I'd like some discussion on this other 5%".
I might be willing to give them more credit if it was clear why they are promoting a computer that has open source software and open source BIOS, but the CPU and peripherals have proprietary embedded software and no one really knows what it does. How could I even give them 95% credit when I don't even know what the goal is or how what they've done so far meets the goal - how would that 95% be measured? If the system can't function without a hard drive and the hard drive runs proprietary software, are they really 95% close to a free and open solution?
In reality, it doesn't matter since few people will want to purchase a 7 year old laptop just because it is "open" - but it doesn't really help the FSF much when they endorse an "open" product that's really not open.
Re:Liberated CPUs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
When was the last time a proprietary video card driver or wifi chipset called home and caused you any problem?
I have no idea, and that's the scary part.
Even if everything is free and open and under your control and you can actually verify everything the ability to "phone home" is predicated on connection to a network, a network of systems that you don't control and that are potentially hostile. If you're genuinely paranoid about the potential for your system to "phone home" with some information then you could trap your network traffic and identify anything abnormal.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Liberated CPUs (Score:4, Insightful)
The world needs people like that, and not because they have a realistic chance of making it happen.