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 Are these outdated specs worth your privacy and freedom?"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)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not their part of the job.
Maybe not. But a group that can't see other important issues because of one issue that they own is jeapordizing its own relevancy to the rest of society. That's fundamentalism in a nutshell.
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: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: (Score:3)
The FSF and all the rest is thankfully a lot bigger than RMS so it's not worth focusing on a jealous guy that is annoyed that the movement he was involved in for ye
I got modded "-1 disagree" (Score:2)
haha, someone modded my two comments down because they disagree.
I guess they want FSF to do everything and hand it to them on a plate, free, user-friendly, zero cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:FSF does free; they do step one, others step tw (Score:4, Interesting)
> 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.
I'd take issue with them nominating themselves as the one true source, but that's neither here nor there. The real question is whether people will be willing to pay exorbant prices for relatively ancient hardware on the grounds that it very slightly increases the amount of "freedom" they have. Given that 99.95% of people will have no idea what this is about and further wouldn't care if they did (as we're talking about an increase that is difficult if not impossible to measure and arguably doesn't exist) I wouldn't hold your breath on this becoming anything more than an isolated instance.
In short, unless one can prove that even a tiny percentage of computer BIOSes and the like are phoning home or contacting the NSA with daily activity reports exactly no one, on the grand scale, will care. It reminds me of all the efforts to create a "free" CPUs or graphics cards in the past. Sure, you could do it and have them as long as you're okay with 10 or 15 year old technology that is incapable of doing anything that is currently useful. But it's Free! :D
Actually, FSF is to thank for the desktop + other (Score:4, Informative)
> 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.
Re:Actually, FSF is to thank for the desktop + oth (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Instead we are trying to do something that Firefox does not aim to do: protect the user's privacy from surveillance by web sites, and protect the user's freedom from nonfree Javascript code. A volunteer is working on our variant of Firefox, called IceCat, with changes for these purposes. We don't have funds for this, so would you like volunteer to help?
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?
You could do a lot worse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Older Thinkpads are among the laptops with the best Linux support you can find.
Well, I had an A21p and the NIC wasn't supported. And the only other factory option was a combo card with a supported NIC, but an unsupported modem. That's just one guy with one machine, but it made me grumpy.
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on how much value you place on an hour of your time and how fast you can configure free software. For me the comparative advantage [wikipedia.org] probably lies with paying someone else to get the thing working.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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.
JavaScript trap (Score:2)
Re:JavaScript trap (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
GPL gives benefits to others via restrictions to others and calls it "freedom". Noting against the ideals of GPL, but stop calling it freedom, it is NOT.
Freedom and Patriotism have various definitions, depends upon whom you ask.
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:Liberated CPUs (Score:5, Funny)
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.
I recognize that most of the words you wrote are in English, and Google Translate auto-detects English, but I still have no clue what you just said.
A merry Loongson to you, dear Trisquel! And a Lemote coreboot to HDL!
Re:Liberated CPUs (Score:4, Funny)
Lighten up, Frances. It's joke.
That said, Loongson, Lemote, Trisquel, and gNewSense aren't exactly the things every geek is into.
Re:Liberated CPUs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Liberated CPUs (Score:4, Interesting)
In part they are able to get away with living in Fantasyland because they still use computers the same way they did when they were students at MIT back in the 70's, not like the way most everyone else uses computers.
For goodness sake, RMS doesn't actually use a web browser like "normal people do:
http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html [stallman.org]
I spend most of my time editing in Emacs. I read and send mail with Emacs using M-x rmail and C-x m. I have no experience with any other email client programs. In principle I would be glad to know about other free email clients, but learning about them is not a priority for me and I don't have time.
There's nothing wrong with using Emacs... but the vast majority of computer users don't use a text editor to read their e-mail. If one wants to make a free operating system that is of use to people who don't have neckbeards...then perhaps one should learn about Non-Emacs reading of E-mail. It's not that hard to learn a E-mail client...it's not like learning lisp.
I edit the pages on this site with Emacs also, although volunteer helpers install the political notes and urgent notes. I have no experience with other ways of maintaining web sites. In principle I would be glad to know about other ways, but learning about them is not a priority for me and I don't have time.
Not even Seamonkey's composer.
I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see git://git.gnu.org/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it (but I make sure I have no net connection, so that it won't fetch anything else).
I sometimes use Google's search engine, and I sometimes use DuckDuckGo. When I use a search engine, it is always from a machine that isn't mine and that other people also use. I never identify myself to the site, of course.
That more than anything else shows the disconnnect in how a Free Software most fervent promoters use computers compared to everyone else. No wonder they seem so "Fantasyland"
I think it would serve RMS or any other hardcore FSFer to actually watch how people who are NOT FSF members actually use computers and then design a free operating system for them...not just bearded guys still using 1970's paradigms who know nothing about modern computer use.
Re:Liberated CPUs (Score:4, Insightful)
The world needs people like that, and not because they have a realistic chance of making it happen.
Re: (Score:3)
That more than anything else shows the disconnnect in how a Free Software most fervent promoters use computers compared to everyone else.
There is nothing typical about Stallman... not even within the core free software movement. And even his mode of usage fits very well with Web 1.0, so you exaggerate when you say 1970s paradigm.
I think it would serve RMS or any other hardcore FSFer to actually watch how people who are NOT FSF members actually use computers and then design a free operating system for them..
Well, I think Qubes OS is one of the most exciting systems to appear in a long time, and its devoted to the idea of a convenient desktop environment built around strong security. As such, binary blobs and other proprietary code --yes, even drivers-- are kept strictly virtualized. There is no other way to keep an eye
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
"Truly free", but with Intel inside(tm) (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously. I laughed.
Re: (Score:2)
...but with Intel inside..I laughed...
Why does that make you laugh? Please, do tell, what's the open alternative.
Re:"Truly free", but with Intel inside(tm) (Score:4, Interesting)
...but with Intel inside..I laughed...
Why does that make you laugh? Please, do tell, what's the open alternative.
I think the fact that it has Intel inside, but is called "Truly Open" is what makes it funny. Until I saw the hardware, my first impression was that they had sourced open source hardware, to be truly free and all.
Just because there is no open alternative, doesn't mean that it is "Truly Open".
Re:"Truly free", but with Intel inside(tm) (Score:4, Insightful)
Privacy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Your privacy can be compromised with open hardware, just as easily as with closed.
Freedom I see, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your privacy can be compromised with open hardware, just as easily as with closed.
The problem is, the former at least allows the community to take a remedial action other than "go back to pen and paper".
free hardware? (Score:2)
What is the point without free and open hardware too?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We can't punish all murderers, what's the point of punishing any?
Umm, okay, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
...what can you do on it besides run gcc?
Mind you, I'm not being a troll, nor am I dismissing the principles behind what they're doing. However, I am wondering how long it'll stay 'pure' before the user realizes "hey, I can't run $favorite_item, even though it normally runs fine on Linux!"
I suspect that those few who bother will likely give up and park Ubuntu/Fedora/SomethingElse on it in very short order.
(won't even touch on the fact that it's an older spec...)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Where did you get that idea? You can get the source via svn: http://www.dd-wrt.ca/wiki/index.php/Development#Subversion [dd-wrt.ca]
Re: (Score:3)
(won't even touch on the fact that it's an older spec...)
I'm sure glad you didn't touch on that!
Re: (Score:2)
"...1024x768 12.1-inch screen "
I'm so used to using a desktop with a 20"+ screen that every time I try to use my 14" laptop screen, I can't bear to use it. Add to that the small keyboard and track pack. By the time I'm done modifying my laptop to useable state - adding a mouse, a full keyboard, disabling the trackpad and adding a monitor ... I have a desktop. I don't see the point in a laptop unless one truly needs portability.
Re:Umm, okay, but... (Score:5, Funny)
...what can you do on it besides run gcc?
Run emacs. If you can run emacs, you shouldn't need anything else
Re: (Score:3)
While it is a nice idea, it doesn't run my programs.
I use MS Word and Excel on a regular basis, Adobe Acrobat (the real version) is my friend. Quickbooks is a part of my life.
The time and energy put into learning these programs means that, while there are indeed "free" options out there, the time and energy required to switch FAR exceeds the cost of the software.
I get that there is more than the price, snooping software is another concern, but frankly, I'm not a single issue voter when it
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried looking at the wiki? 1-click installs for all the blobs [opensuse-community.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Have you tried looking at the wiki? 1-click installs for all the blobs [opensuse-community.org]
Doesn't that violate an Amazon patent? ;-)
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:Harddrive firmware? Probably non-free, no probs (Score:2, Troll)
> Is the harddrive running open-source firmware too?
A disingenuous double attack.
First: "Since I can't be perfect, why should I make any effort at all?"
Second: "FSF is has compromised! that makes them insincere"
The answer is that no, the hd firmware isn't open. Like the firmware of a microwave or common wristwatch, it's probably impossible to put new firmware on it, and it's probably not a problem.
A line has to be drawn somewhere, so FSF's line is: if the software (including firmware) can be updated, i
Re: (Score:3)
> Is the harddrive running open-source firmware too?
A disingenuous double attack.
First: "Since I can't be perfect, why should I make any effort at all?"
The article says:
The free software operating system preloaded on the refurbished X60 is Trisquel GNU/Linux, the Ubuntu derivative backed by the FSF that ships without any proprietary software or firmware options.
So tell me again who is being disingenous?
Second: "FSF is has compromised! that makes them insincere"
The answer is that no, the hd firmware isn't open. Like the firmware of a microwave or common wristwatch, it's probably impossible to put new firmware on it, and it's probably not a problem.
A line has to be drawn somewhere, so FSF's line is: if the software (including firmware) can be updated, it must be free. The philosophy is that if it's complex or important, then the vendor will create a way to update the firmware. If the firmware can't be updated, then the code is probably sufficiently mundane as to be ignored, just as circuits are ignored.
Why say it has "no proprietary firmware" when it clearly does?
Firmware is available [seagate.com] for many (most?) hard drives. I'm not sure why that makes it difference -- if that particular laptop didn't allow BIOS updates, would it be ok to advertise it as not having p
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: (Score:2)
what about the microcode? (Score:2)
Is the processor running free microcode?
Also, did they really code their own SMC bios? I find that hard to believe.
Can't you just make your own? (Score:2)
They must start somewhere (Score:3)
This path the FSF has taken to "create" a FLOSS system is not a bad one.
Instead of needing to manufacture a new laptop, simply "refurbish" an existing model and gauge your target market.
If the demand grows, newer models may be refurbished until it's economically viable to manufacture some.
I believe the "truly free" system here is just a model of what the FSF would like to see available in the market and not an actual business plan to compete in the marketplace to sell computers.
Nothing says freedom... (Score:5, Funny)
...like "Made in China."
It's still using propritary code (Score:2)
Coreboot still applies microcode "binary blobs" from CPU vendors, so this still isn't truly free - http://www.coreboot.org/FAQ#Is_coreboot_applying_x86_microcode_patches.3F [coreboot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The CPU still has its default blob inside it.
All the FSF have done is strip out the bug fixes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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?
Nope, not worth it (Score:2)
Nope, they are not. If only because the hope for "privacy" is still based on the claims of the makers and sellers. Just like it is for all other computer systems: no manufacturer would admit to be spying on their users. Certainly not in hardware.
Bang-per-Buck (Score:3)
Are these outdated specs worth your privacy and freedom?
No - but the Market will ultimately decide that.
Re:Bang-per-Buck (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, "the Market" means "whoever has the most dollars," which are concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite of anti-freedom oligarchs. If you want to keep your privacy and freedom, you'll need to find better allies than "the Market," because Gates, Zuckerberg et al. "outvote" you (likely millions to one). Markets do not protect freedoms, aside from the freedom of oligarchs to rule unimpeded.
Modified Coreboot used (Score:2)
What a ripoff (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Conversion result: $291.40 (US dollars) - £178 (British pounds).
It would take a decent skew in purchasing power parity to make up for that.
There's no market for "truly free" (Score:2)
There has to be a benefit somewhere. Most people don't just shell out money for their principles, and especially not something as vague and terrifying as freedom. There's perceived value in using Linux (no Microsoft lock-in, potential security issues, etc.), but if that means having to give up watching Netflix, then people will choose Netflix and buy a Windows or Apple machine.
There's a market for truly secure though. There's a very big market in fact.
Goes with your OpenMoko (Score:2)
People who use an OpenMoko [openmoko.org] will love this.
There's something to be said for what the FSF is trying to do. The problem is that they're too slow in doing it.
Still not 100% 'free' (Score:2)
What about the microcode running on the CPU?
What about the firmware on the various integrated peripherals, like the keyboard, hard drive, etc?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All hard drives these days have firmware update software available.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a way to update keyboard firmware via software, since that would make manufacturing/production testing easier.
Expensive! (Score:2)
No Hurd option? (Score:2)
Is there a Hurd installer?
FSF, you tried your best and you failed miserably. (Score:3)
.
Re:FSF, you tried your best and you failed miserab (Score:4, Funny)
Well that's a little different, a registered user trolling an AC! What's next, cats chasing dogs?
Proprietary hardware (Score:2)
This laptop contains proprietary Intel chips. We know that hardware makers like Intel have colluded with governments to insert undocumented die-level and firmware level "features" into their products that could serve as backdoors and otherwise weaken the device's security against sophisticated attackers.
Where is the open source, audited CPU? Ethernet controller firmware? Wireless firmware? Microcode updates?
Worth it? (Score:2)
Not worth it.
This will fail miserably.
The FSF isn't saying that *you* should get one... (Score:2)
... but people like Glenn Greenwald might want something like this: a machine that has at least some attempt made to make the software transparent. The target audience is the paranoid.
Sure, it may not be perfect (keyboard firmware, etc.).
Father Time (Score:2)
CNET posted a review of the X60 in March 2006. Lenovo ThinkPad X60s [cnet.com] The release date for this "ultraportable," February 14. This is for all practical purposes an eight or nine year old machine.
I am comfortable buying refurbished.
But nothing this old --- and never without a warranty, however short-lived.
Open hardware.. (Score:3)
A long time ago (like, 1994), on the linuxnet irc network, there was this guy named _Joe_ that claimed he was going to build boards around the Dec Alpha chip that would be dedicated Linux workstations.
We were all salivating.
So far as I know, it never happened, (sadly).
But I always wondered about it -- in the early days of Linux, most of the people working on it were used to using proprietary unix hardware with proprietary unixes. We were clearly willing to use non-windows compatible hardware if it made sense.
It's somewhat surprising to me that "designed for Linux" workstations aren't more popular. On the low end, you have things like the Pi, but that's not necessarily setup to be a general purpose workstation. On the high end, you have the older Silicon Graphics big iron that was designed for Linux. Not really "normal workstation" material, and not by any means open hardware/software.
I guess what I am curious about is that given the level of talent in the F/OSS community, why there doesn't seem to be a clear market participant that builds "Linux compliant" workstations and servers, including preferring chipsets that have open hardware and open firmware. And why isn't there an industry around designing those open cores and writing firmware for them?
Being a fabless hardware company is easier than ever; where's the open source hardware platform that I _know_ doesn't have strange reliability issues (like the random MSI board I bought a few years back), doesn't leak RF/audio all over the place (like the Packard Bell my friend grew up with), and has 100% of its hardware well supported by in-box kernel drivers?
The last few motherboards I've purchased from Newegg have all had subtle defects with them. I'd rather pay a bit more for a board where I knew that the people behind it weren't looking to cut costs but were instead looking to make a product they'd be happy to depend on day-in and day-out, and that part of that guarantee was that the board was widely used by the community and was made of open components that didn't have obsolescence designed in.
That organization or those products may exist already, but its hard to tell who is selling a Rolls Royce vs. who is selling a lemon. If you go by reviews from places like Newegg, there isn't necessarily a correlation between brand and quality or price and quality.
Does anyone have suggestions?
(As an aside, I'm happy with the Raspberry Pi I bought. But it's clearly not a workstation replacement. Similarly, I'm happy with the Alix PCEngine I bought years ago to run my openBSD edge device. That custom hardware has worked very, very well. But it's not a general purpose workstation either)
I guess my contention is that while I cannot afford SGI prices, I can (and will) pay more for something that I have a reasonable assurance of getting strong community support for. Who wants my money? :)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like Arduino? Or OpenSPARC? As you wish!
Re: (Score:2)
Then you'll need either MIPS or SPARC. Actually, a mobile SPARC would be pretty awesome. I'd consider a MIPS laptop too, but only if it could run IRIX.
Re: (Score:2)
Such a thing exists:
http://www.lemote.com/en/products/Notebook/2010/0310/112.html [lemote.com]
Re: (Score:2)
RMS uses the Lemote Yeedong, which is based on a MIPS Loongson processor. I don't know if any company other than Tadpole ever came out w/ a SPARC laptop - it would be cool if one did. However, I doubt that there are any portable low power FOSS SPARC CPUs out there. But I agree that a mobile SPARC would be pretty awesome.
Actually, given what current FPGAs have become, one could make a SPARC laptop out of a SPARC CPU (suitably fabbed and modified for low power consumption) and an FPGA supporting all the
Re: (Score:2)
Try a different design. I've got a 3D printer that uses my shelving as a mount for the plastruder assembly and work-bench as a base. If I craft the design properly for pauses to swap feed-spools I can print things hundreds of feet long by a meter or so wide and tall with my modified RepRap.
Re: (Score:2)
Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system. However, Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According to the project, this software is “not part of the Debian system,” but the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can readily learn about these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database.
There is also a “contrib” repository; its packages are free, but some of them exist to load separately distributed proprietary programs. This too is not thoroughly separated from the main Debian distribution.
Previous releases of Debian included nonfree blobs with Linux, the kernel. With the release of Debian 6.0 (“squeeze”) in February 2011, these blobs have been moved out of the main distribution to separate packages in the nonfree repository. However, the problem partly remains: the installer in some cases recommends these nonfree firmware files for the peripherals on the machine.
You see, in the church of St iGNUcius, even offering polluted un-liberated software to members of the flock who want it is the equivalent of offering softdrinks to school kids in CA who want them: Debian is supposed to deny them that choice b'cos it's not good for them. Since they don't, and give the lowly users a choice (gasp!) of using polluted un-liberated software, they are blasphemers who don't deserve to be supported by the FSF. Even if the distros like Trisquel are ultimatel
Re: (Score:2)
X60 was a tablet with a stylus.
Uh, not exactly. X60 was available as a perfectly ordinary laptop.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do people still think that taking an antique computer and adding Linux is such an amazing thing?
This is a 7 year old laptop - and while someone may have replaced all the batteries with new ones, dismantled it and cleaned the internals with an air duster, and cleaned up the case it's still a diverted piece of e-waste.
Charging people $320 for something that probably cost them less than $50 to acquire is gouging - especially when people have problems with them.
I assume your time is worth nothing and the new batteries are free.