On 11/09/2016 01:43 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > Hi all (again), > > we are restarting the process of getting PureOS as FSF endorsed OS. We > built new infrastructure and released alpha 2 image publicly so we want > to march together on this road with you and see the final release of > PureOS 3.0 as FSF endorsement of PureOS. >
Hi, I'm sorry but I can't read the whole thread, especially since the first reply attaches to sap the discussion. Just a few remarks in passing. Other OSes asking for endorsement don't come with selling hardware. IMO it would be a mistake to discredit PureOS because they have a hardware business attached. OTOH, it's Puri.sm's responsibility to solve the proprietary BIOS problem since they have the possibility to collaborate with Libreboot to do that: having chosen an incompatible chip was probably a strategic mistake. > > Bug tracker: https://tracker.puri.sm/maniphest/ > This should probably bring to an anonymous, read-only version of the site so that the public can see the issues and how they are handled. Participating in issue tracking is another task entirely and does indeed require authentication on the Web thanks to spammers. > Wiki (we could use interested parties here :) ): https://tracker.puri.sm/w/ > Same here. > We really want to do this properly and be welcomed into GNU family. > As suggested, your best bet now that the whole discussion is ingrained with LibreM notebooks, is to find a replacement chip for the BIOS that's compatible with Libreboot. I gather this is not at all possible, and you're still working on having the manufacturer free the chip you're using. Good luck with that. Maybe having your infrastructure on pureos.org or something might help with getting an endorsement while you're freeing your BIOS. You have my full support in this endeavor, and actually I'd be curious to learn about it more thoroughly (what stage? What difficulties? How others can help? What would be the cost of switching to a new, compatible chip, etc.) Regards, == hk
