this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
332 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
59087 readers
1727 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So they could do it for pixels and this open source firmware could be used by Graphene OS, for example?
The issue is that for the FSF, what they call "software freedom" is their number one goal. So what's likely to happen is that they create some kind of "deblobbed" firmware that breaks many features and security of the device, which Graphene OS will refuse to use.
I hope this project will be useful but am worried that they'll just make a shittier version of someone else's work like they did with e.g. Libreboot.
There's a bit of hyperbolism and distortion in that comment.
So first of all, the FSF did not create Libreboot, that was just a coreboot distribution by one (or two) people and I would not call it shitty, it had prebuilt binaries with working GRUB configs for the models supported, even allowing for full disk encryption with a well written guide on how to do so.
Secondly, it's hard to create a chain of trust without trusing the hardware. As long as the manufacturer remains in control of any part of it, you will get the same situation thay we have now. I would rather use a deblobbed device than wait for obscure security features that provide no real-world benefit to my use case.
However, I think this may not catch on. Hundreds of millions of people use completely outdated phones with spyware of some form on them right now, they simply don't care.
Indeed (as I said) they did not create it, they made a shittier version of it, called GNU boot. Or I guess maybe not "the FSF" but devs under their umbrella. I think Linux Libre would be a better example. Or all the crappy "FSF approved" distros listed on their website.
That's true but that's not really their stance. They trust the hardware and the software running on said device, as long as they don't have access to the software. Microcode updates are an example of this. They don't like microcode "blobs" in the kernel but trust the outdated vulnerable microcode running on their CPU.
I would not. I would prefer not to get hacked by spectre type attack. I also don't like broken virtualization on my CPU and don't want my CPU to destroy itself by high voltage.
But yes, I agree that to trust the software, we need to trust the hardware first. This also means that there is basically no "Respects Your Freedom" hardware. Every such hardware runs proprietary software which the user cannot see. And even if it ran no such software, it's still just proprietary hardware, which we cannot study, create derivatives, etc. If I ran the FSF, I would acknowledge that there is nothing but grey area, instead of drawing an arbitrary line through the grey area.
Going back to phones, I am just worried that the Librephone project will focus too much on moving the proprietary parts from software to the hardware instead of actually helping users to get more freedom.
The FSF approach the microcode is just brain dead.
Could not have said it better lol. I dislike their overall mentality that they don't care about proprietary code if it's baked into hardware. But at least I can sort of understand how they got that idea. But with the microcode part, I just cannot even fathom how did they come up with such stupidity.
Yes, though the future of GrapheneOS on Pixels after 10 is currently in question