The other downside with Tails, from a libre POV, is that it uses the blobbed
version of the Linux kernel, not Linux-libre. This is why FSF will not
endorse it. Of course, RiseUp (developers of Tails) do this for a good
reason; Tails is designed to allows its user to get on the net from any PC
they can get their hands on, and including the binary blobs (mostly firmware/
drivers) means Tails will run properly on a wider variety of PCs than a 100%
libre distro like Trisquel or Uruk.
It's a shame the FSF endorsement list doesn't have different levels,
something like:
* Gold: fulfils every criteria on the FSDG (Free System Distribution
Guidelines) ie the existing list
* Silver: default install fulfils every criteria on the FSDG, but gives users
access to some proprietary software in a separate repo (eg Debian)
* Bronze: fulfils every criteria on the FSDG except using linux-libre, but
vows to remove blobs for any hardware as soon as there is a free driver that
can support it (eg Tails)
Also some kind of usability-rating would be good. After deciding to move on
from Ubuntu to a more freedom-respecting distro, I tried a number of the
distros on the FSF's list before I found one that was actually usable as a
day-to-day OS, which was Trisquel, which is why I'm here (see:
http://www.coactivate.org/projects/disintermedia/blog/2012/10/22/brick-seeks-free-software-foundation-endorsement/).
Of the 9 full distros on the list, almost half are not even being actively
developed according to Distrowatch (eg Dragora, Utoto, Dyne:Bolic, Musix). Of
the 5 that are left (Trisquel, BLAG, Parabola, GuixSD, and gNewSense), BLAG
is useless and broken, Parabola is an Arch fork (experts only), I haven't
tried GuixSD or the last couple of versions of gNewSense.
My point is, having different levels of endorsement would give users a
greater range of actually usable distros to try, while still educating them
the freedom issues involved.
