As per fsf only those linux distributions are 100% free:
Dragora
Dyne
Guix
Hyperbola
Parabola
PureOS
Trisquel
Ututo
libreCMC
ProteanOS
Do you agree or no?
I see a lot of people that want to switch from windows to a linux distro or a open os. But from what i see they tend to migrate to another black boxed/closed os.
What is a trully free os that doesnt included any closed code/binary blobs/closed drivers etc.
Just 100% free open code, no traps.
What are the options and what should one go with if they want fully free os that rejects any closed code?
Bruh is your CPU even source available?
The only option for true transparency is to build it from scratch, like at the logic gate level.
Those distros have ethical and legal value but they don’t magically make you better off.
Calling Debian stable another black boxed closed OS is just rage bait.
I have to answer to this post directly… First of all: I am a member of the European free software foundation. I am since over 10 years.
Using those distributions is, sadly, a security risk!
Everybody must be absolutely clear about the fact that CPU microcode updates are property blobs, and therefore removed by those projects.
This means: Your CPU runs with only the build in firmware and is most likely vulnerable against many CPU level attacks. CPU bugs can only be fixed with microcode , and if you drop those from the systems you leave the systems vulnerable.
Full free software distributions are a important, but very esoteric.
OP claims even the kernel itself is non free software. So let me just cite the kernel archive
Is Linux Kernel Free Software?
Linux kernel is released under the terms of GNU GPL version 2 and is therefore Free Software as defined by the Free Software Foundation.
I heard that Linux ships with non-free “blobs”
Before many devices are able to communicate with the OS, they must first be initialized with the “firmware” provided by the device manufacturer. This firmware is not part of Linux and isn’t “executed” by the kernel – it is merely uploaded to the device during the driver initialization stage.
While some firmware images are built from free software, a large subset of it is only available for redistribution in binary-only form. To avoid any licensing confusion, firmware blobs were moved from the main Linux tree into a separate repository called linux-firmware.
It is possible to use Linux without any non-free firmware binaries, but usually at the cost of rendering a lot of hardware inoperable. Furthermore, many devices that do not require a firmware blob during driver initialization simply already come with non-free firmware preinstalled on them. If your goal is to run a 100% free-as-in-freedom setup, you will often need to go a lot further than just avoiding loadable binary-only firmware blobs.
Probably OpenBSD NetBSD
For that goal, really stick by the FSF recommendations, for that, they are perfect as they have strict requirements.
But I think calling other GNU/Linux distros black box only because some drivers are proprietary is a bit too far, some people just prefer a “minimum damage” approach and that’s a compromise everyone needs to decide for themselves. If I were living in China or Iran, however, then I would exclusively run distros like that as well.
Edit: typo
We ate talking about:
- CPU Microcode
- Firmware for network and WiFi cards
Those are not just “some hardware will not work”. Currently, don’t using those blobs that you will have an vulnerable CPU but ad you are also offline that should be safe /sarcasm
Better get an Open Hardware RISC V system, with stuff like the graphics, sound and elt/WiFi/Bt being Open Hardware too.
Then you can go with a fully open OS and it will actually make sense.
This. When RISC V hardware starts being more common and decently priced (price/perf), sure, I’ll happily go all open. Till then running with half my hardware broken doesn’t really do me any favors
They’re 100% free in the sense that they don’t ship closed code, ever. That is the goal to attain. However, we’re not there yet. For that, hardware needs to be open. Hardware can’t be as easily be made by a group of volunteers as software. Like at all. To solve this ‘transient’ state, all popular distros allow adding some sort of ‘nonfree’ repo so that, you know, shit can work. For instance, you are free to install Debian and not enable the nonfree repo, which is not enabled by default. You are also free to wonder later why your webcam doesn’t work, you can’t print, your bluetooth headset won’t pair and your fancy gaming GPU outputs 10 FPS @800x600.
Calling a “regular” Linux desktop operating system being Black boxed or closed source is a bit too far in my opinion. I do not agree 100%, but I understand the concerns and points brought up in this discussion.
We need purists like the fsf. They are truly fighting the good fight, but I am also happy to see people be just more free too, even with some compromise.
I agree, rhetoric like OP’s framing a non-FOSS distro as ‘just another closed source/black boxed OS’ reads like OP is suggesting it isn’t even worth migrating from Windows to say, Bazzite. Which is dangerous.
I’ll take a door I can peer into but has a few shadows over a completely closed door anyday.
We need purists like the fsf.
I do not mind that they are purists. On this issue, my problem is that the line they draw between open and proprietary is an entirely meaningless one and yet the act as absolutist about it as everything else.
I do not mind that they are “pure”. I dislike that what they are saying is wrong (inaccurate, not morally wrong).
The operating system and up seems like a totally resonance place to draw the line for Free Software. I mean “software” is right in the name.
Making a big deal about firmware is asking me to pretend I do not know how hardware works and ignore that I am actually using totally proprietary tech regardless. And classifying hardware that is more open as less free just jumps the shark completely. It hear no evil, see no evil nonsense that demands that I never ask questions or look behind the curtain.
I do disagree with you. Proprietary firmware and proprietary hardware does make you less free. But if the rental agreement you have with them is good enough for you, why would I bash you for it, you know?
Its why RISCV is exciting in the CPU space to me. Its more free (even if the IP under it is proprietary). Every step we take towards it advanced the field to me. Again though, if you are renting any piece of the stack, it’s still better that you own what you can to do what you/want then just giving into the “you will own nothing” push.
Just gotta take the wins where we can, celebrate the work, and keep working, you know?
The reduction in proprietary hardware that results from those systems is not meaningful in my view while the massive reduction in security and the greater inconvenience matter.
People have no idea how their hardware works. A card from NVIDIA has not just the NVIDIA drivers but a bunch of internal systems with additional firmware. Even your CPU may have an entire OS on it.
Hardware that allows its firmware to be updated is more open, not less, even if I currently only have proprietary firmware to load on it. And at least it can be updated. Simply not letting me upgrade the firmware does not magically make the hardware more open. Not allowing proprietary firmware for an open source operating system is just not an idea that resonates with me.
Would I prefer fully open source hardware and firmware? Yes. I am happy to see these options are slowly developing. In the meantime, we all run our software on proprietary hardware and drawing the line between hardware and software at a less convenient or less secure point is not making me any more free.
At least, that is my opinion man.
Intel defiantly have they own small os in CPU it’s based on minix
Make sure they /actually work/ on your computer; not for nothing Debian started to include proprietary drivers by default.
If you switch to <fully-free-os> and nothing works, then what?
We would all prefer no proprietary code whatsoever, but prefer even more that stuff would work.
If you really want to go for fully libre route, I’d consider buying –in the future or now, depends on how much do you want it right now– the correct hardware for it.
Trisquel is an Ubuntu base, with all non-free and binary-blobs removed.
Any spyware, data harvesting, tracking, advertising, or hidden code has been removed.
This also means some hardware will not work under Trisquel, because that hardware relied on drivers which were a blob of unreadable code.
–
I think everyone running Linux should try an FSF endorsed distro, and have it as a general goal to move towards over time. The easy way, is to try it first on a LiveUSB or in a VM.
To really see these distros shine, they need to be used on hardware that has open-drivers available.
To find functional open-hardware, you can use the same hardware models that various online, libre, hardware-retailers are using, such as:
Or trawl through h-node.org to decipher what may work.
–
A second 100% libre laptop or box is a good idea for sensitive or personal content.
Agree those are 100% free? I don’t know. It would take a lot of research to verify but I trust fsf as it is currently so think its likely the case. Agree to fully switch to a 100% free os? No. I need the nvidia driver. I would like to though. Believe that really any linux distro is a black box/closed os? No. Just having some binary blobs from vendors is a compromise but its not a deal breaker.
Agree to fully switch to a 100% free os? No. I need the nvidia driver.
Well, there is an Open Source Nvidia driver nowadays (not talking about Nouveau, but the new Nova). I don’t know how good it is and my old Nvidia 1070 card is not supported by Nova. So cannot do any comparisons sadly. I think in the future Open Source Nvidia drivers could be in a similar spot as AMD.
yeah and its been around for awhile but never works quite as well. I choose my os partially by it being install and work with not much more muss or fuss. That being said when buying hardware I preference amd because of the drivers.
Can someone educate me on why the more common ones like Debian and Arch aren’t on this list? Every single day Linux communities force me to look at computer stuff in a different light
Edit: I learned a lot and accidentally incited discourse oops
Usually because they include by default some proprietary software. Usually that is firmware for processors or graphics. Or they by default include repositories with non-free software. Also media codecs are a common one too.
The FSF takes a pretty extremist approach to FOSS. Which isn’t necessarily bad.
It’s not just by default it seems, they excluded Debian because it had a toggle to be able to choose to add it during install(pre-2022), so it seems that their criteria is any type of affiliation with non-free software
The FSF has a page dedicated to this exact question: https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html.en
Debian is actually 100% free if you only enable the main repos.
They actually explain why they don’t endorse Debian in the link the person above you added. Apparently since you /can/ enable the non-free repos in the installer, it doesn’t classify as 100% free. I don’t agree with the statement and find it weird, but that’s how they defined it.
Yeah. The Debian Free Software Guidelines are actually very strict if you read them. The FSF are just purists, even if 100% free software is the default. I don’t really understand it.
I somewhat agree with their mentality on post 2022 Debian since they had changed the default and made it harder to disable non-free from the start but, from what I understood by reading the FAQ page, even prior to bookworm it wasn’t endorsed due to having the toggle in the first place, which I find super weird.
If you don’t make a conscious decision to disallow free software it becomes too easy to normalize its inclusion.
even prior to bookworm it wasn’t endorsed due to having the toggle in the first place, which I find super weird.
They probably predicted (correctly) that this attitude would eventually lead to the decision that they ultimately made in 2022.
because they ship with closed source software/packages/drivers/firmware/kernel blobs etc.
most linux distros are the same trap that windows locks you into.
they ship with closed source software/packages/drivers/firmware/kernel blobs etc.most
Yes.
linux distros are the same trap that windows locks you into.
Oh, come on.
What a bunch of bullshit.
Linux, first of all, is the kernel. Linux is GPL and always free.
And userspace zurück itself is about 90% free.
Of course, you can choose a 100% free os, then make sure you use a free bios and only open hardware CPU and Mainboard and memory! 09 This argument is esoteric. I am an FSF member, but I use Steam on Gentoo.
The idea behind such distro lists is to show how hard it still is to provide a really 100% open source distro.
Let me remind you, what is non free in in most systems:
- CPU microcode!
- GPU Firmware
- Wifi / BT / Ethernet firmware
- Media Codecs
Stuff most users need!
And what the fuck is I distro locking me in? I can switch my distro between boots without fucking loosing any data or configs, I can choose what to install. I can install stuff from source. How can you even try to compare this with Microsofts property black box?
Because you can not see what the microcode blob does with your CPU? The CPU you can not inspect also? Or the GPU? Or the BIOS?
I agree , I use multiple distros including #guix use nongnu software because I can’t get libre drivers. Not sure where “vendor lock-in” for Linux distribution comes from. FSF is great but I don’t have the resources , time to find all the libre drivers for my systems. I have been using Linux/BSD for decades. Also Linux is just a kernel not the userland which most people think it is.
kernel is not free
it ships with blobs/proprietary crap etc
if it was free gnu-linux libre wouldnt have existedThe kernel itself does not contain blobs, firmware or microcode. That is loaded after boot if you’ve chosen to do so.
lol i’m sure the average joe who switches from windows to you name what linux distro does this by himself and not the os doing it for him wtf
So, you have an open system with coreboot, and do not use firmware?
You don’t load the microcode patches that makes you CPU safe?
You know that then you should not use any browser with JS or WASM engine? just asking because those exploits are still being used …
I’m responding to this:
kernel is not free it ships with blobs/proprietary crap etc
That is not true.
lol i’m sure the average joe who switches from windows to you name what linux distro does this by himself
Neither are you. And what that has to do with windows users is beyond me.
If you want gnu/herd, you’re free to install and use it. You will have no:
- MP3 playback
- use for wine (wine is Foss, but almost no windows executables are)
- practically no WiFi
- no discord
- no zoom
- no widevine
- no ms teams working properly
Drawing a hard line in the sand about FOSS is possible, but you must give up many modern conveniences.
Where is there firmware in the Kernel tree?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/
Explain then why gnu-linux libre kernel exists if linux kernel is totally free?
I don’t know, they seem to scrub everything related to firmware loading and more. A whole while ago, the kernel contained blobs. Those are moved to the Linux firmware project and no longer part of the kernel l.
So, you are the one here claiming stuff. Proof it. Where is the firmware in the kernel tree?
you dont know but yet you talk rubbish
Have ever tried to learn what exactly their scrips doing of their project please do ,the most worst part they hidding bummer that u are running not secure microcode .I like ideas behind fsf but their paradigm and what they trying to do is useless and not effective anymore we need something new with same ideas
What do you even try to say?
There doesn’t exist much hardware that has fully open firmware enitely on mass market. I’m not talking about GPUs and CPUs but even WiFi dongles . The FSF is pretty hypocritical in that they’re okay with closed firmware which is built into devices themselves, but they’re not okay with firmware that comes as a file. This is nonsense. Also, they forbid distros which give you the ability to install non-free software even if you require it for your work, forbidding even Electron and fonts which have non-free licenses. This is not possible to live with in the modern patent world. And btw blobs not exist anymore in linux code of torvalds repo it was sepearated long time ago
Aren’t these shipped without any proprietary firmware, which you can try and if it works for you it works and use it but for many people these just won’t work and using stuff like arch/Debian/fedora/opensuse to name a few will work much better. Like they are great distros if they work for you use them but they are not for everyone.
This. No property firmware blobs, nothing that is considered non free software.
So, no Nvidia graphics for gaming, no wifi and bt, a bunch of software not available.
I thought Debian didn’t include firmware and other binaries by default. I remember having a separate firmware CD for installs on weird RAID controllers. Did that change?
It didn’t until 2022 or so, it’s had a toggle that can be turned on or off for non-free repo’s for as long as I can remember but, starting around 2022 they changed the default to allow for non-free (and also apparently made it a pain in the butt for the live install to disable it because its a boot param now instead of a toggle)
They changed that with Debian 12 I think
No. You don’t get it.
You have to switch to hardware that keeps its firmware safely hidden inside so we can call it “hardware”. If you let the firmware be updated, now it is “software” and it has to be free. But you can run in whatever “hardware” you want and be totally free.
I don’t get what?
There is a reason for the naming hardware, firmware, software.
HARD, FIRM, SOFT.
No, hardware das not bekomme Software just because it has firmware.
And yes it would love to see free firmware.
Look at CPU microcode. It is used to fix security issues in hardware. Without it you are vulnerable. Not using the property firmware blob to update the microcode is a very very bad idea. Does that make the CPU software…
Never upgrading your CPU firmware is a bad idea. Most of the people saying that “works for them” have no idea what they are talking about. Yea, your system runs. Congratulations.
And they are still running on proprietary firmware. Just outdated firmware that they refuse to update.
It is just such utter nonsense. It makes my brain hurt.
