Which desktop computers user can use in 2025 ?
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
Hi everyone.
I see that the official FSF Viking Store has not sold desktops for 2 years now.
If you look at the Respects Your Freedom Certification website https://ryf.fsf.org/index.php/categories/workstations-and-servers there is NOTHING there , this is a problem !
And no , wait there is a store in Romania called “Technoethical” but it seems that the seller does not understand the reality or is very greedy or does not respect the users because to sell a D-16 desktop computer with such specifications for 2K euros is nonsense !
I am a translator!
Unfortunately, there are currently rather few computers that could meet the requirements for RYF certification.
I got help to repair my D8 and it is working again now (I am writing this message using it). https://trisquel.info/fr/forum/how-free-software-computer-rock64#comment-178671 says that the rockpro64 works blobless with GNU Guix and it should be possible to install Trisquel on it. I tried with the installer but it did not work. I guess I need to spend some more time on it. This board is not so powerful but it could be good enough for every day tasks, it is still being produced and it is rather cheap, so it would be nice if the installation of Trisquel on it could be made to work.
"Which desktop computers user can use in 2025?"
The same ones that were used in 2024. And 2023. And earlier. It hasn't changed.
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuboot/web/docs/hardware/
--
Sent from my Asus KGPE-D16
yeah... that's not quite accurate. gnuboot is very outdated.
https://canoeboot.org/docs/install/
lists like 6. Gnuboot is better off either dying or being based on canoeboot.
20160907 is very outdated.
I don't get the obsession with sticking with 20160907 version of libreboot.
Freedom and the cost of security/privacy not to mention, canoeboot follows the same principles as old libreboot.
So you aren't gaining anything really.
Let's avoid echoing the propaganda.
Yeah that's such a cringe response. I don't know what else to say, except that is a bad take.
Denial solves nothing.
EDIT:
As expected, people thumb me down because they cannot handle the truth.
The "GNU Boot is outdated and should die" narrative is honestly a bit loaded. GNU Boot is going in a different technical and philosophical direction. An echo of some of Leah's more aggressive takes, which come from a particular history and personal beef, has shaped a lot of the spin against it and overlooks the actual work being done and the reasons behind it that don't get mentioned. Imagine a Coreboot-based distro integrated with Guix - with declarative system configs, full reproducibility, and strict freedom guarantees. Imagine a project that upstreams the work instead of carrying large patches as libreboot and canoeboot do. That's the kind of innovation that projects like GNU Boot evolve toward. Going in a different direction means they can't just become canoeboot. However, such things aren't mentioned in a conversation that started with the intention of smearing projects and people to advance libreboot and canoeboot, and even suggesting the idea of dying or becoming canoeboot means either actively participating in spreading that propaganda or being totally unaware and just parroting talking points that originated from personal grudges and incomplete narratives, aka propaganda. It has no place, whether someone is actively participating in it or just parroting the talking points. Hence, "Let's avoid echoing the propaganda."
"As expected, people thumb me down because they cannot handle the truth."
It's worth saying - that when a conversation starts framing one side as the only possible truth and treats any dissent as weakness or ignorance, it stops being about understanding and becomes about control. That's precisely the kind of dynamic some people are concerned about with the rhetoric around GNU Boot - it shuts down fair discussion and reduces everything to "they're just wrong and outdated." There's room for different technical directions and software design philosophies without labeling in this way. But of course, there's no room for such things when the conversation's really about something else.
And just to be clear, this isn't a personal attack on anyone. I'm just offering a different perspective on a complicated topic that's often discussed in a really one-sided way.
I'm aware that even saying this might lead to more private messages or behind-the-scenes pushback, especially given the history around this topic. That's unfortunately become a pattern when people speak up with a different perspective on GNU Boot or challenge certain public narratives. Still, I think it's important to have these conversations openly and fairly - without letting fear of personal retaliation shut them down.
Gnuboot dying wasn't the only option, be based on canoeboot was the other.
If you don't have enough developers working on gnuboot btw, its the inferior project.
Canoeboot is based on same ideology as libreboot was before, she admits its inferior I know, but I guess I am saying, your current focus being on gnuboot feels like it is based on narcissism and arrogance rather than the truth. That is how I genuine read this to be.
I can tell you disagree though.
Although the bright side is, you are already using the GNU operating system, so its possible the extra security of canoeboot won't matter much anyhow. GNU rarely gets malware anyhow.
Unless you are running a server off of it, I suppose you should be fine.
I am a translator!
> be based on canoeboot was the other
I don't understand this point. You can use canoeboot if you want, there is no use to base anything on canoeboot, and it is impossible anyway. Canoeboot was put in the Free Software Directory, what more do you need there?
> she admits its inferior I know
I don't know what you mean here either. What I see on IRC is that, anytime someone asks something about canoeboot, Leah replies that canoeboot is inferior to libreboot (the one with non-free micro-code, but Leah omits that) and that they should not use canoeboot.
Leah had promised[1] that Canoeboot and "Libre"boot wouldn't conflict with eachother's policies and that Canoeboot would simply be pro-FSDG without crapping on eachother but of course that was a lie and now canoeboot.org has a page ( https://canoeboot.org/news/policy.html [2] ) crapping on the FSDG (Leah and breaking promises, iconic combo)
[1]. https://trisquel.info/en/forum/canoeboot-20240510-released-gnu-fsdg-compliant-100-free-software-coreboot-distro-replacing-pro#comment-176342 :
> Canoeboot from now on will fully promote GNU FSDG policy, praising it completely. If you spot anything contrary to this, please let me know :)
The "please let me know" shows further malice by implying that non-compliance with FSDG would simply be an accident rather than the very deliberate action shown in the canoeboot.org page shown above.
[2]. I do not mean to promote the viewpoint stated in that page but rather link to it to show the deliberate treachery and breaking of promises. To not promote the viewpoint above, here's links to many articles by FSDG-supporters rightly criticizing the viewpoint shown in Canoeboot's policy.html:
https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/blogs/lxo/draft/blob-fallacy
https://jxself.org/by-any-other-name.shtml
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html
Canoeboot's software part is libre and it's even listed at https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Canoeboot , *BUT* this does not mean that it is FSDG-compliant and in fact Leah can't be trusted to keep it FSDG-compliant because they (Leah said that "she" is acceptable pronoun for themself but deprecated ttps://vimuser.org/nonbinary.html ). I'm not saying one can't use Canoeboot's free software such as its ROMs (I have one of them flashed as my computer's boot firmware), but Canoeboot is like playing minesweeper and if you are not careful you will step on a mine. Canoeboot is not driven by true altruism, it's driven by Leah simply trying to win and dominate. Leah prefers that if FSDG-compliant boot firmware is to exist, it should be led by them (singular), not actual FSDG-supporters, as shown in them (singular) trying to take over GNU Boot: https://trisquel.info/en/forum/should-gnu-boot-become-gnu-canoeboot
I feel anxious about the fact that "Libre"boot's site is linked at one of the sections of https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/all-manuals without any warning. If it has to be linked, there should be a huge warning stating that "Libre"boot is no ally of FSDG-supporting free software users nor FSDG-compliant distros such as Trisquel GNU/Linux. Leah does not care at all about the actual ethical requirements of the FSDG.
> in fact Leah can't be trusted to keep it FSDG-compliant because they (Leah said that "she" is acceptable pronoun for themself but deprecated ttps://vimuser.org/nonbinary.html ). I'm not saying one can't use Canoeboot's free software such as its ROMs (I have one of them flashed as my computer's boot firmware), but Canoeboot is like playing minesweeper and if you are not careful you will step on a mine. Canoeboot is not driven by true altruism, it's driven by Leah simply trying to win and dominate. Leah prefers that if FSDG-compliant boot firmware is to exist, it should be led by them (singular), not actual FSDG-supporters, as shown in them (singular) trying to take over GNU Boot: https://trisquel.info/en/forum/should-gnu-boot-become-gnu-canoeboot
Sorry, I accidentally split that first line of thought by accident and went on a tangent by not finishing the first sentence and only elaborating on it at the end of the paragraph, I was focused on Leah's preferred pronouns because even though I hate their (Leah's) evil ideology and evil actions "justified" through these ideologies I still want to give them (Leah) basic respect, even evil-doers deserve love. I do not wish harm upon individuals themselves but rather on the undemocratic/evil power structure that they are often a part of, when I say MacroSuck as a dysphemism for Microsoft I do not mean ill towards Macrosuck's employees (wage slaves) but rather on the structure that leads to the abuse of those employees and to these employees working for the benefit of oppression of those outside the company through e.g. proprietary software, I do not wish suffering upon Leah as a person but rather disagree with the ideology and undemocratic/non-free power structure that Leah's position of hierarchy, treachery and tyranny represents
Evil? Hiearchy, treachery, and tyranny? You don't think that's a bit extreme?
Nah, it's spot-on in my opinion.
If by extreme you mean me strongly criticizing oppressive power structures and its positions of leadership and artificially-sustained oppression and anti-idealist thinking that makes people think that perpetually maintaining extreme levels of oppression is a necessity for society to work, then yes, I'm being very extreme, but not necessarily in a bad way, I wish no suffering upon people, I wish them happiness and I want to help destroy the undemocratic system that oppresses them (while of course helping replace it with a much better system, otherwise there's a power vacuum). I have little to no pity when criticizing non-free software (therefore inherently undemocratic) projects such as "Libre"boot which happily adopt mainstream "open-source"-related toxic opinions while pretending that it is a sign of rebellion and free thinking, such as the idea that proprietary software is somehow even worth fighting for in a fight against minority radical/idealist tendencies in the free software movement which seek to reject proprietary software entirely. The idealists are always a tiny minority which the majority of society will misunderstand and/or even bully while such majority will pretend (or maybe even believe) to be high """IQ""" due to simply believing in "compromise" (in most cases simply surrender) to oppression as a rational "Middle Ground", that it's fine to support brutal anti-idealism concepts associated with all the mainstream political spectrum such as society's dependence on proprietary software; unreasonable catering to "moderation" while stripping away any remnants of trying to change society rather than surrendering to its oppression (like Debian simply voting to no longer make installation images available without non-free-firmware preinserted); love for violence against sentient beings, wishing suffering and death upon certain beings (including animals) who do not align with the person's prejudice, supporting the view of Hell as a place where those who the person dislikes suffer eternally, loving karma; only applying concepts of freedom against the government but being fine with private entities such as companies oppressing people (imagine e.g. a "copyleft" license that allows everyone to make the software proprietary except the government); imperialism supporting oppression against peoples around the globe; seeing the trees but not the forest, e.g. simply opposing a politician rather than the system that births such politician; only seeing oppression in the present rather than as a long-lasting mechanism ("The US was such a beautiful strong democracy before this one guy (Trump) ruined it! I want to go back to the status quo that allowed him to rise to power in the first place"); cult-of-personality for individuals (even going as far as naming ideologies after such individuals, e.g. Marxism, note that I'm not against communism but that I find disgust at the focus on Marx's violent, undemocratic and tyrannical teachings which are completely opposed to the forming of an actual communist society based on ideals of ending oppression and establishing common welfare and communal/democratic management of society, sadly many Marxists want to have a monopoly on the term "communism" and to refer to anyone who disagrees with their methods of oppression as an "anarkiddie" or "liberal"); belief in surrendering power to a dictator or president (a "dictator-lite", similar to a proper dictator in the sense of helping make people passive and serving the interests of an oligarchy, making people focus on the individual rather than on ending the oppressive system itself) rather than forming direct (rather than merely "representative") forms of democracy in which both the community and the individual can have direct control and in which there are no single points of failure, with authority being collectively spread between the people (this direct form of democracy being something that software freedom greatly promotes)
Sorry but you seriously need to touch grass. People who have minor disagreements with you are not evil.
If you want to do something productive instead of writing big walls of text on this forum, I would suggest getting involved in some free software project and contributing. Even if you don't have any programming ability, there are ways to contribute.
> People who have minor disagreements with you are not evil.
Notice how the unethical deeds I criticize these people for are just "minor disagreements" to you, but when I do strong criticism of these unethical acts you accuse me of extremism (i.e. implying that this is not minor at all). The horrible things I mentioned (cult of personality, proprietary software, violence, etc.), this is supposed to be "minor disagreements", but strong criticism of these things is somehow extremism. You are proving the point I've made in previous replies when I stated that the majority of society will rather support the cruel status quo as a stance of "moderacy" than critically support the effort of those seeking to replace such society with something much better. This is why people will spend much more time attacking software freedom than attacking proprietary software, the latter is much more evil but somehow because it's the status quo it's somehow "moderate" and any strong opposition to it is "extremism". Also with people spending more time attacking copyleft than attacking the proprietary software that it opposes: https://jxself.org/consistency.shtml
> If you want to do something productive instead of writing big walls of text on this forum, I would suggest getting involved in some free software project and contributing.
Software freedom is political, not just in theory but as a successful means of promoting ethics and idealism and bringing concrete improvement to living conditions even in a society which is hostile to software freedom. Deep political commentary concerning ethics is necessary for the advancement of society.
> I would suggest getting involved in some free software project and contributing.
I already do that, you are just assuming I don't and that I'm just a "petty keyboard warrior" because I disagree with you.
> you seriously need to touch grass.
Non-argument. It's like me critically analyzing society and real-life is proof that I'm not knowledgeable about society and real-life and that I need to somehow "touch grass"
Its still miles better to use libreboot than the stock bios. non-free microcode in hardware is only a problem if you think freedom is so valuable that its worth hurting stability and performance even though that gained freedom isn't from no longer being remotely spied on.
I cannot understand this idealism. Privacy should be paramount and Security should be second. Only then do you have the freedom you need.
Its not like the hardware that is RYF, can be built by anyone.
Its still technically proprietary hardware, its just now the crap has been disabled/mititgated.
Its not a free hardware design. This type of purist approach is outdated.
Its not just Leah, others have pointed out that hardware has changed and that there are many forms of proprietary firmware that largely are being ignored:
hdd/sdd firmware, External GPUS, EC firmware ae all also proprietary.
You cannot get 100% freedom on any device. Its already baked in.
As times change, standards must be updated too. To say otherwise is just arrogance.
The freedom that is sought by FSF is hurting its movement. Their methodology needs to evolve with the times
And I dare say, there are times I think pragmatism makes sense. If its a network stack enabled backdoor, that should be disabled ASAP, I could go on and on, but its already kind of a rant, so I will stop here.
I won't try to debate with you (Zoma) in this reply because you clearly have different goals than strict software freedom and are not interested in learning why strict ideals are important, so you (Zoma) feel free to ignore this reply if you want to, *but for the sake of other people reading this*:
1. Most of the points in Zoma's reply have severe ethical and logical flaws and are rightly criticized in the links I've linked to at marker "[2]" in one of my replies above, in fact many of these points are strawmen and/or greatly distort the goalposts. I won't touch on all the flaws here (you can read the links), but here's some points with my interpretation:
2. as for "Their methodology needs to evolve with the times": The idea that the FSF doesn't want to evolve is a strawman, they do want to evolve, but NOT in favor of accepting greater proprietary control but rather in the opposite direction, as shown in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html where it is made clear that support for free designs for hardware is essential for when the future comes where society greatly increases the ability for common people to easily make hardware, also due to modern proprietary hardware being increasingly freedom-hostile. So why do these people say the FSF is backwards and not evolving? They don't like that it's evolving in a direction they don't like, i.e. with the increase of idealism rather than running away from it.
3. as for "I cannot understand this idealism. Privacy should be paramount and Security should be second. Only then do you have the freedom you need.": GNU and GNU/Linux would never exist if this quote was followed. Mass surveillance, spyware and insecurity have been much more developed in recent times, and I seriously doubt that during the times of the original proprietary UNIX (which GNU replaced) spyware was as much of a concern with proprietary software as it is today. Does that make the original proprietary UNIX ok? Of course not. And the concern for security being used as a "justification" for proprietariness is also bad: when you are quick to accept proprietary microcode updates from an external source but have no freedom to provide libre microcode updates of your own nor from your free-software community, you have fallen into a trap and lost your security to those who abuse you through updates that they control
3. as for "hdd/sdd firmware, External GPUS, EC firmware ae all also proprietary.": a lot (if not all) of this is true, and it is indeed bad in my opinion, BUT: not having achieved full perfection yet is not an excuse to reject advancements made in other areas. We've already done so much to support liberation of the higher-level software components of a computer, e.g. with FSDG-compliant operating systems and even demanding freedom for the firmware installed in such operating systems and also for lower-level components such as boot firmware. "You are not literal perfection so your idealism sucks and is arrogant and harmful" is not a good excuse to simply embrace even greater imperfection and promote surrender in areas where software freedom can already be established. Why do they expect us to be literally perfect when they really don't want to be perfect themselves?
4. As for "[RYF hardware] is not a free hardware design. This type of purist approach is outdated.": RYF and free hardware design are related but different concepts, RYF focuses on software freedom and means of freedom for TODAY, hardware freedom is important but as of today the means for exercising hardware freedom are very scarce and difficult and for most people not applicable YET, especially due to the lack of capacity for common people to partake in the manufacturing of their own independent hardware.
5. as for: "The freedom that is sought by FSF is hurting its movement. Their methodology needs to evolve with the times". I already talked about the second sentence, but about the first: The Free Software Foundation, a foundation of software freedom, a software freedom foundation, a foundation specifically named after free software, is hurting its goal of freedom for computer users by focusing on such goal despite the pressure from majority of society to abandon it?
I am interested in software freedom, but my definition is different. To me software freedom means no backdoors dialling back and forth sending my information.
Another words, intel me disabled = intel me deleted.
Yes that idealism created the FSF was good then, but just think for a moment, do you all honestly think that restricting yourselves to really ancient hardware is going to catch on with the majority of people? The majority of people have a hard enough time taking my ideal seriously.
to me freedom doesn't spit at all proprietary blobs, just the ones that have remote functionality and again, dial back and forth. DRM another words.
What I meant by evolving with the times is not to be so rigid in ways that make no sense.
Intel me disabled = intel me deleted is a stance that fits this. Basically, if it ain't a functional backdoor, then it shouldn't be something you worry/have to reject.
The microcode would be a problem if it were backdoored, but i have heard no such info.
FSF should be against backdoored DRM. But if isn't DRMed, proprietary isn't an issue.
DRM is the underlying issue of why FSF needed to be formed.
I think I have explained myself now well enough.
Your idea of software freedom is far different than mine and yours seems outdated to me as well.
Anyways that is all.
Edit: I begin to think that there is no way I can get you all to understand, it seems like a cult, lots of narcissism.
Thumbing me down because you are too stubborn to get that you aren't gaining any extra freedom choosing canoeboot vs gnuboot or for that matter libreboot, dasharo, etc...
It's all just narcissism and inability to accept different ideas. It would be one thing if you were accepting DRM, but this is neither here nor there.
PS, you can feel free to thumb this comment down as much as possible, as I begin to realize, you will anyways and perhaps I should see that as a badge of honor for common sense.
I appreciate that you're coming from a place where privacy and security are the top priorities - and those are obviously crucial in their own ways. But I think it's important to recognize that others in this space aren't just chasing "idealism" for its own sake.
For many, the goal of free software isn't about backdoors or being spied on - it's about control over one's computing. Even if a proprietary program doesn't include surveillance, if I can't inspect or change its code, then I don't really control it. Someone else does. And, if I control the program, then I can close the backdoor if it has one or make it stop spying on me if it does, but it doesn't end there.
That's why people value software freedom even when there's no known backdoor: because the power to decide what the software does - and doesn't do - philosophically belongs to the user, not just the vendor or developer.
So while your approach emphasizes functional threats, others are concerned with structural control. This is grounded in a different set of values from your own and isn't outdated any more than your view is.
I see where you're coming from when you mention the refusal to accept different ideas, but I think it's important to recognize that the approach some of us take isn't about stubbornness or purity for its own sake. It’s actually grounded in a values-driven perspective.
The core value for many in the free software movement is that the user should always be in control of the software they use — not just from the standpoint of security or privacy, but from the standpoint of ownership over the tools they use and, perhaps quaintly, ought to be thought to be in charge of.
In that sense, accepting proprietary software unless it has a backdoor isn’t just a "different idea" - it contradicts the fundamental idea that the user must be able to see, modify, and understand their software to be in charge of it. If we're unable to change the software or view its source code, we're essentially handing over control to someone else. That's a coherent position that's driven by a desire for true autonomy and self-governance in how we use technology, even if you don't understand or agree with it. Perhaps the rights of the user is a quaint notion in the modern world but it is that notion nonetheless.
So, when some of us push back on proprietary software, it's not because we don’t understand different perspectives - we do - but reject them because we believe that the freedom to control your own computing is paramount and non-negotiable, even if the software doesn't include a backdoor or data harvesting features or whatever else.
It’s not about rejecting progress or being purist for the sake of it - it's about ensuring that freedom and control remain at the heart of our relationship with technology.
Real dialog starts by understanding what matters to each side. Maybe if we start there, we can find ways to advocate together, rather than seeing them as mutually exclusive.
Yeah, for me security/privacy are the most important elements of freedom.
Although, its worth saying, most times, this kind of freedom requires libre software.
Like you all I agree that ath9k is the safest wifi card right now.
I just disagree on hardware as said.
I brought all of this up because I am concerned that FSF's current ideals might be holding back the movement. If intel me disabled wee considered libre by the FSF, I have no doubt the movement would have more influence. As of now, I feel it might be holding back the spread of free software.
Anti-DRM is the best way to do freedom in my opinion basically.
Anything else is vague and confusing. I am not even sure you can study/modify everything on old libreboot hardware or as some call it GNUBoot.
So while you will be safe, with GNUBoot, it does hold you back from newer tech of similar freedom.
Not much else to say though.
I hear your concern about how the FSF's standards might be "holding back the movement," but I think it's important to ask: which movement are we actually talking about?
The FSF isn't the Secure Software Foundation or the Privacy Software Foundation - it's the Free Software Foundation. Its focus has always been on user freedom through control of software, as I was talking of earlier, not on making the most secure or private tools available.
That doesn't mean security and privacy aren't important - of course they are. But it's a different mission. Saying FSF is holding back the spread of software that prioritizes privacy is a bit like saying they're not doing enough to save the wetlands - it's just not their core mission.
If you're going to critique their approach, critique it on how well it advances their actual values - which are about ensuring the user can run, inspect, change, and share the software they use.
You've got a different vision, and that's fine. But it's not fair to say their efforts are misguided or hurting the mission just because they're not chasing the exact same goals you are. Different missions, different priorities. That doesn't make them wrong - just focused.
Perhaps, but there absolute strictness on these criteria do have one weakness:
Many people will think that seeking FSF/RYF freedom isn't worth it because that would mean using really old hardware.
FSF should want people to ditch proprietary as much as possible even if it means making minor concessions like that.
Do you see what I am saying?
That's what I mean by the FSF's current criteria is hurting the movement.
This could in turn make people think the FSF is too far out there.
Of course knowing the right balance is always tricky. You don't want to give too many concessions either.
I just think the current balance is off by a lot.
I get what you're saying - and I think you're absolutely right that there's a trade-off between wider adoption and holding firm to strict principles. But at the same time, compromise has limits, especially when a movement is defined by its principles. I think what’s often misunderstood is that the FSF's goal isn't mass adoption at any cost.
The FSF sets a very high standard - not because they think everyone will meet it today, but because someone has to define the goal line. If they start compromising and loosened their criteria for short-term convenience just to make it easier to adopt, say, to make more modern hardware qualify - they might reach more people, but at the cost of watering down the very message they're trying to spread and the clarity of that goal starts to erode.
People might find the strictness inconvenient and some will always says they're "too far out there," no matter where they're at (think about that), but it's that clarity - that unwavering stance - that makes the FSF's mission distinct. If they shifted the line to make things easier, it would blur what they stand for.
The FSF's role has always been to hold the line as the lighthouse of software freedom, even when it's unpopular - because software freedom is worth that. They're trying to protect an uncompromised vision of what software freedom can look like.
So yeah - finding balance is tricky. But if you're going to hold a line, it should be the one that ensures the user remains in control. That's the kind of freedom the FSF is fighting for - and it only works if the definition stays clear and consistent.
I'd say rather than the FSF adjusting its standards to fit what people are comfortable with, maybe what we need is more public understanding of why those standards matter in the first place.
That doesn't stop others from creating more pragmatic on-ramps toward that goal - and maybe that's where your approach fits in. But the FSF has to be the one saying, "This is what full software freedom looks like," or that ideal just disappears into convenience.
Yeah, true it is unpopular the FSF's stance. To be honest, even my stance wouldn't be popular either.
My main vibe these days is, do not trust proprietary DRM not to do nefarious things.
Some would even reject the idea of thinking that if they use windows especially 10 and newer that they don't control their own computer.
But yeah, at least I am on the same page now with understanding you. I still don't that looks like full software freedom to be honest.
But then as previously stated, no network stack on DRM is a requirement for freedom in my personal view and as I said above, even this stance wouldn't be popular either.
Yeah... I hope the FSF's current ideals doesn't harm itself long term. Then again, I am only human, I have no idea what the future holds. So there's that.
Btw, I thought of one other issue, what happens when gnuboot computers become scarce or too slow for the internet?
Do you switch to libreboot devices? or do you think that won't happen. I am genuinely curious on this question because sooner or later we will run out of such hardware for one reason or another. I recommend though Neox adding all the devices canoeboot supports to its list of devices that are supported. Aka, port them.
Or, to put your question another way: What should we do as the Titanic continues to sink?
https://jxself.org/titanic.shtml
Sadly, newer versions of Firefox/Abrowser have removed support for the Ogg Theora video codec so perhaps the best way to see the video is downloading it and playing it locally.
Well I definitely have interest in Risc-V and Microwatt:
https://github.com/antonblanchard/microwatt
ARM64 is somewhat interesting too, but yeah, Risc-V and Microwatt are probably the best freedom friendly future anyone has for hardware.
I can't say for sure though how they will turn out or when they will get enough support to compete with x86.
I'd add that when talking about other platforms "competing with x86," it's worth remembering that the goal of software freedom doesn't depend on commercial success or market share or being able to "compete" in some other aspect like how good they are from a technical or price point or whatever else. The goal isn't to overtake x86 and become popular and "competitive" via whatever measure at all costs. They could be less popular. They could be more expensive. They could be less technically capable. They could even be all of these things at the same time. That doesn't mean not necessarily wanting those things; they just shouldn't be allowed to overtake as the primary mission because if that happens, then there is room for different decisions compared to the goal of software freedom being the primary point. Look at the Raspberry Pi as an example. The primary goal was to make a computer that was small and cheap. As a result, it didn't turn out very well on the software freedom side. This is a perfect example of how different values and priorities can have different results. So there are limits to that sort of thinking before it becomes problematic for software freedom. As long as they provide a way to compute in freedom, they're still meaningful even if they don't achieve anything else.
wget https://jxself.org/build.ogv
You're in the wrong forum Leah, go here to rant about your twisted and flawed view of computer freedom:
https://forums.freebsd.org/
Yeah I don't see any posts from Leah. And FreeBSD isn't libre nor do I think much of them. OpenBSD? Maybe, although their devs are toxic.
Your idea of freedom is beyond flawed if you are saying mine is flawed.
Its downright bankrupt if that's the case. Chill.
A lot of Ws, fully agree with everything you said here.
Get a job Leah.
What the hell... she has a store dude what you are saying couldn't be any more peculiar and unhinged.
...
Depends on what compromises you are willing to make. Any Intel CPU that uses the UHD 770 onboard GPU or older works on the libre kernel. Any other CPU that doesn't have onboard graphics can be paired with a GTX 780 Ti at best as well as anything older on the Nvidia side and will work with the libre kernel. The Intel CPUs will have the Intel ME but you can get a board from 3mdeb which has Dasharo (Coreboot) and can limit parts of the Intel ME. Lots of options if your simply asking which hardware will work with the libre kernel but the closer you want to get to the FSF approved hardware then the less options you have.
https://shop.3mdeb.com/product-category/dasharo-supported-hardware/
> a D-16 desktop computer
True. There is the fully built workstation or the mainboard. They both ship with GNU Boot:
https://tehnoetic.com/desktops
EDIT: the workstation is currently out of stock. So that leaves the mainboard, at €1,100.
Thanks for your replies.
jxself in 2023 a student,high school student or adult could still buy a DONE computer from official FSF stores at an adequate price.
You write the word “supports” it is not the same as going to one of the official FSF stores today and buying a free computer today for a student,high school student or adult and using it today. Is the user obliged to know how to build a computer ? NO it is not obliged and should not, it is done by enthusiasts, that is 1-2% of 100% of users !
Second important question, if a student, schoolboy, adult wants and takes all the risks (to build a desktop computer by himself) why is there no wiki on GnuBoot or FSF site how to do it?
In other words now a schoolboy, a student, an adult can neither buy nor build a desktop computer!
I don't see on the official FSF website https://ryf.fsf.org/vendors in the "VENDOR" section a link to https://puri.sm/ ( Pureboot + Coreboot ) or https://minifree.org/ or for example https://shop.3mdeb.com (Dasharo + Coreboot) https://shop.nitrokey.com/shop/nitropc-pro-2-523 Coreboot) which I understand means that it is NOT recommended to use these vendors.
Think Penguin also sells laptops and desktops that have been tested with Trisquel 11 and you can have preinstalled and prebuilt with it:
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/penguin-t4-gnulinux-laptop
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/penguin-pro-14-gnu-linux-desktop
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/penguin-mega-gnu-linux-desktop-w-coreboot-opt
"I don't see on the official FSF website https://ryf.fsf.org/vendors in the "VENDOR" section a link to https://puri.sm/ ( Pureboot + Coreboot ) or https://minifree.org/ or for example https://shop.3mdeb.com (Dasharo + Coreboot) https://shop.nitrokey.com/shop/nitropc-pro-2-523 Coreboot) which I understand means that it is NOT recommended to use these vendors."
The reason you don't see a link from FSF for these is because FSF won't endorse anything that doesnt have the equivalent of GNU Boot or old school Libreboot. Minifree has systems that use newer Libreboot which has blobs and same for Dasharo and Purism. FSF takes a very purist approach which is a good thing as nobody else does. It doesnt mean other options don't exist but you won't see them endorsing them.
Non-RYF computers with GNU/Linux preinstalled:
Can people stop being childish and thumbing me down because they hate the truth?
Crossing my fingers people stop abusing the thumb up and thumb down options.
Prove me wrong by not abusing it...
I doubt it though.
Hello PublicLewdness.
Thanks for your reply.
Yes Christian ( if I am not mistaken ) is a good friendly seller , but the examples you showed are the same as I gave above and my examples in terms of power are even better . This is all Coreboot .
Libreboot I don't consider because I recently watched a video of NeoX the developer of GnuBoot and he said publicly that Leah Rowe is cheating his users ( in short).
The video is https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-a-fully-free-bios-with-gnu-boot
I am not looking for a computer on which I can install Trisquel this distro as you wrote can be installed on many computers.
I'm talking about buying a free computer now in terms of hardware and as I understand the most powerful option so far is ASUS KGPE-D16. I don't see any alternatives anymore.
Christopher Waid is known as the founder and CEO of ThinkPenguin, but maybe he has a twin brother helping him at the shop?
Hello icarolongo.
Thanks good and useful post.
As for https://puri.sm/, https://thinkpenguin.com/, https://shop.3mdeb.com/, https://minifree.org/,https://shop.nitrokey.com.
I realize that these are secondary options, but if we compare with official FSF stores, these companies do not write to their users that this motherboard is supported, they sell ready-made products that a high school, college or adult person can order and buy today.
To summarize, we conclude that now a high school, college or adult can NOT buy a ready assembled desktop computer. This is very sad ...
Today ASUS KGPE-D16 is the most powerful motherboard plus AMD instead of Intel!
I wonder why these motherboards don't use GnuBoot, could be considered:
Does not contain AMD PSP from 2006 to 2014 (analogous to Intel Management Engine (ME) which is a backdoor)
ASUS A88XM-E https://www.userbenchmark.com/System/Asus-A88XM-E/7254
ASUS AM1I-A https://www.userbenchmark.com/System/Asus-AM1I-A/4480
Hello Prospero.
I apologize I got the name wrong, yes I meant Christopher.
In his store as it is written on the FSF website sell computers on which you can install and use FSF distro, but there are no computers such as ASUS KGPE-D16 with AMD processor or ASUS KCMA-D8.
It turns out that a schoolboy, a student or an adult now can not buy a computer that meets the requirements of FSF.
THIS IS A PROBLEM !!!!
How exactly are you planning to help Trisquel users with that problem?
Hello Prospero.
The first thing to do to help is to inform the community about this problem, which will get worse and worse every year, which I have done.
The first call has already gone out, the official FSF vendor has stopped building and selling this type of desktop.
The next step is to have a user who has passed this way in our community, that is, assembled a desktop computer, shared his experience not just by writing that the motherboard is supported, and wrote a detailed instruction on how to do it with photos.
If this is not done, users will 300% buy computers, links to which I gave above, for example in minifree.org.
As for me personally, I can buy all the parts of a desktop computer and try to assemble it, but I need detailed instructions to make sure I don't screw anything up.
Okay, let's start a page on the wiki then: https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/kgpe-d16
I'm focusing more on theory than specific sellers to avoid endorsing any one source - and to follow the idea that teaching someone to fish feeds them for a lifetime.