Oh my… Okay I treat first technical issues:
Le mercredi 6 novembre 2019, 18:52:50 CET gameonli...@redchan.it a écrit : > [Posting here because the technical reason Libreboot is now a bad option > is because it doesn't work with newer systems, Libreboot is a bootloader meant to replace BIOS (or UEFI), that is on systems which have BIOS or UEFI… That is intel systems. And nowadays intel systems are locked, impossible to update, and come with proprietary and security-threatening non-removable Intel ME (and AMT). > and the Libreboot > "maintainer" There is no more libreboot maintainer since the founder wanted to take it out of GNU and then leaved after disagreeing with the other developers because of that. > has seemingly no will to update the project, and no > technical ability to work > around the problems] The problem is not technical but political, intel does shit: https://libreboot.org/faq.html#intel https://libreboot.org/faq.html#amd Developers tried to remove as much they could, they couldn’t arrive to anything free- software that would just *boot*. So that with modern hardware you have to choose between freedom and being able to boot. > Coreboot is the actual project, it can be compiled without binary > blobs, and has an command line option to do so. > Libre boot is Coreboot without the binary blobs. Libreboot also contribute upstream to add reimplementation and reverse-engineering of binary blobs, even more especially when these are required in order to boot. > Libre boot has not been updated in 3 years. […] > Usually this would be fine for a program: at some point often > a program is completed and needs fewer code updates (then one should > focus on media updates and additions that use its capabilities), It can be considered it is the case, for the specific point of intel and amd hardware. Unless AMD and Intel change politics for newer to-be-released hardware, that won’t change. Progress is to be researched on other architectures. Very well, x86 is not very esteemed anyway. And ARM is taking over everything, and is better esteemed (though not as much as MIPS or Alpha). > but > this particular program must be updated to work with new hardware > (new, ever more compromised hardware...) No. > The "maintainer" (again: here we have someone who is not a > main-programmer of the Work, being effectivly credited with the Work, > when the work on the Work consists simply of removing parts of the > Work, or just setting different complile options) No, the original founder did contribute upstream to coreboot. Libreboot is a distribution of coreboot that contributes to it. Coreboot people are simply not willing to remove proprietary binary blobs that just “work better”. Libreboot solves it the same way as Linux- libre to Linux (even more), gNewSense to Debian (even more), Trisquel to Ubuntu or Parabola to ArchLinux, LibreCMC to… forgot it. That’s very common and not a problem. And it almost always implies some additional philosophy policing work that is politically very important within free software. Otherwise we wouldn’t be supporting it. I have some grief against Pure OS because it doesn’t add/remove that much, and have communication and marketing I dislike. Though (especially through librem 5 project) I heard it contributed to some upstream software projects (not Debian though). > revile the > Coreboot programers, No. They’re doing good, important and useful job. But they’re not on our philosophical standards against proprietary software. That clearly underlines what I previously said about separation between technique and politics. The rest is nonsense as you yourself saw both defense and attacks on RMS and their orders of magnitudes. Just count the mails, count people who expressed in each direction *and people not having expressed* (you can find maintainers on pages of each gnu package in /s and developers in VCS histories). > RMS is an actual programmer, not merely a > "maintainer" who /removes/ things: he built things from the ground up. He also do that. GNU is a negative movement. We want for proprietary software to *disappear*. That’s his ideology, and ours too. > "Maintainers" should not steal the glory from the actual originators of > the Work. We see it happen here where "Maintainers" try to oust the > Authors. They should know their place, or not have one at all (their > position and role is more of one of plagirism than anything else) So you’re proposing to throw out linux-libre, trisquel, parabola, librecmc, gnewsense, pureos, etc. pretty much most of FSF’s endorsed distributions and its kernel. This is stupid. It is also pretty complicated to remove non-free parts from Linux, so Linux-libre is essential. And the ability to remove non-free part of coreboot *directly comes* from active upstream hacking from *libreboot developers* (including leah). > this > "maintainer" has not been cancled,
