Hi, On Sun, 2025-03-09 at 15:58 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Ansgar 🙀 <ans...@debian.org> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, 2025-03-09 at 14:19 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > > Our experience seems to differ, I now run Trisquel and Guix on many of > > > my home and machines and servers. For my uses they all work without > > > non-free firmware. You have to be careful about what hardware you buy, > > > and chose your use-cases. And, yes, I use modern hardware -- i9-14900K > > > on desktop, i7 1260P and Ultra 155H in my two most used laptops, > > > ARS-111M-NR and Talos II on the server side, as well as a bunch of aging > > > Dell R630's. > > > > This class of hardware *requires* non-free firmware. Lots of it, at > > every system layer. > > Agreed.
So we agree that pretty much all hardware requires non-free firmware these days. > However none of that hardware require me to load non-free > firmware from my operating system, which is my point. That situation is > sufficient for me to accept to use the hardware and install an operating > system built without non-free software on it. What is the point of this then? Does it help users to replace/rewrite non-free firmware if it is not supplied by the operating system? Or enable the user to not use non- free firmware? I don't think so. The only other reason to do this seems to be free/libre-washing by pretending the non-free firmware is not there... But I don't think that is something useful to spend resources on (but if people want to do so for unofficial installer images, they are of course free to do so; as far as I understand the FSF is in favor of free/libre-washing). Or is there some other reason to want to do this? Ansgar
