My wishlist:

  • Disabled Intel ME
  • Libreboot/Coreboot
  • From Europe if possible
  • For running 100% free distro
    • CubitOom@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would one not be safe if using any GPU using the free drivers that come with something like arch?

      I’m not sure of the criterion and ive never tried to go to this level of freedom so I’m not claiming anyone to be wrong, but hardware would only do what the driver is capable of right?

      How much less freedom would one have running Arch with an AMD RX 7900-XT using the free drivers compared to Parabola with any AMD card listed on https://h-node.org/hardware/catalogue/en ?

      • drascus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        so AMD is likely going to be one of your best bet because they open source their drivers. However YMMV because I don’t see that specific card listed, that doesn’t mean it won’t work but you might have to do some sleuthing to find out for sure. You can always install third party drivers as a compromise until you replace the hardware down the line. I know that’s not something anyone wants to do but sometimes that is the only thing you can do.

        How much less freedom would one have running Arch with an AMD RX 7900-XT using the free drivers compared to Parabola with any AMD card listed on https://h-node.org/hardware/catalogue/en ?

        So that is sort of a philosophical question. I don’t think it could be actually quantified with numbers. If you run Arch that will be the standard kernel which has a number of binary blobs by default that are non-free. It also has a repository list that contains non-free packages. These are all things that some advocates frown upon. However if you don’t use any of those non-free hardware the binary blobs just sit there and do nothing. If you don’t install non-free programs you don’t have non-free programs installed. There may be some non-free things installed anyway that your could route out and remove. This is the benefit of a free OS like parabola someone has done all that work for you and they have a linux libre kernel that removes the binary blobs.

        There are some people that this just does not work for because of performance, battery life, unsupported hardware etc… Is it better to use a mostly free OS than a proprietary one? Absolutely! is using a completely free OS better than using something like Arch? Likely but you are starting to split hairs at some point. That is just my opinion. Some people are definitely of the attitude that it’s free software or nothing which is a completely fine stance to take but it might not work for everyone. More freedom is always better so getting the best system possible with the most freedom you can is still better than using all proprietary.

        • CubitOom@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s also interesting to me how the “more free” parabola is – from my point of view – more restrictive (less freedom).

          Since it’s based on Arch the biggest differences seem to be no included non-free blobs which is cool but then it also restricts the repos that packages can be pulled from so that only free packages can be installed.

          To me, more freedom means one should be able to use any repo they want (including the AUR) and install anything if they wish.

          Just like we enjoy the freedom to sudo rm -rf /. Like maybe it shouldn’t be done but if you want, go ahead.

          I think parabola has its place as a sort of testing ground for GNU only software. But there is like a semantic issue with the word free in how GNU uses it. Especially since we have to keep telling people that it’s free as in freedom not as in cost. But then we turn around and say, “You can’t do that”.