Well, I don't see that as acceptable. Or to rephrase that: I don't think it's
acceptable enough.
I don't fully understand the need to award a "RYF", is it such a priority, to
stamp a logo "RYF" in a product? On the other hand I consider unfair to
remove it afterwards. The X200 is now a good product that has the RYF. If a
100% Libre computer came along (with no blobs at all) the X200 would still be
a good product. Should it be "removed" when it never changed (had no
proprietary bits added to it), just got "second place" because some other did
better? I don't think that is the best way to deal with things.
Please note "The X200 is a good product". I am not against the work done by
Libreboot. Actually I think it's one of the best projects we have right now
in terms of freedom! What I consider misleading is the whole "RYF" thing. I
think the FSF could totally recommend those computers while mentioning that
they are not 100% libre but are the best choice for now, and still not need
an "award". I think that is in some ways... smoke and mirrors if you will.
It's like saying we have something that respects your freedom, but it's not
perfect, until something better comes along we will say it does then we
discard it. I know they are not being "rude" to these projects, but it's
kinda the message I see in there.
What should be the difference between X200, Chromebook C201, Macbook 2,1? I
know they have some technical differences (I for instance would hardly trust
any hardware coming from Apple) but they all have LibreBoot support. And none
of them come from a "nice to freedom" maker. Again, I think the FSF is right
in recommending some machines, but I don't think the "RYF" will do any good
in the long run.
