> Not all coreboot features are necessarily malicious
But some of them may be, and without freedom 1 there is no way to check. Also, while proprietary software is often malicious, the fact that it is non-free is enough of a reason not to use it. It is wrong for the developer to have power over the user, even if the developer has not yet abused that power.
> e.g. the proprietary VGA option ROM which supports more laptop monitors than the free libreboot native graphics implementation.
Linux supports more hardware than Linux-libre. Chrome supports more websites than Icecat. Spotify supports more music than LibreFM. The problem is not with Linux-libre, Icecat, LibreFM, or Libreboot. The problem is with the hardware that does not work without non-free blobs, the websites that don't work without non-free JS or Flash, and the music than can not be legally shared in a freedom-respecting way.
There's such a thing as a strategic compromise. If someone has a computer that does not support libreboot but does support coreboot, has the means to install coreboot, and cannot afford a new computer at this time, then installing coreboot is better than continuing to use the proprietary BIOS. If someone has a laptop whose WiFi card requires proprietary firmware, and if they cannot afford a USB dongle at this time, then installing the proprietary firmware onto an otherwise free system is better than using a completely proprietary system. However, these are temporary measures only appropriate when absolutely necessary. If someone has the means to buy a new computer or can afford a USB dongle, then the freedom compromise is not a strategic one because it is unnecessary.
> There's quite a lot of proprietary code being run by libreboot such as CPU microcode (without updates), EC firmware, SSD/HDD firmware etc. Whenever they find a free replacement they use it, but the computer is far from 100 percent free when using libreboot.
True, and this is a real problem that has yet to be solved. However, these are temporary measures, only appropriate because they are now necessary. Proprietary EC firmware is currently necessary because a free replacement does not exist. coreboot is not necessary because libreboot exists. Unnecessary compromises are steps backward with no strategic value. Using coreboot instead of libreboot will not give us free SSD firmware.
> You basically cannot get both performance and freedom with Intel. In my humble opinion, it would be better to be honest about the compromises made in terms of freedom to get performances.
I agree. If people are deceived into thinking that there is a path to freedom with Intel machines, they will not understand why it is important to support efforts to explore non-x86 architectures. Also, compromising performance for freedom sends a message that freedom is important, which normalizes caring. Conversely, compromising freedom for performance sends a message that having shiny new things is important, which normalizes complacency. In any case, the amount of performance compromise should not be a problem for free software users.
I think it's also important to point out that, in general, only Windows and macOS users benefit from having the newest hardware. Operating systems like Trisquel aren't bloated enough to require the newest hardware.
