TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe

As far as I know it's also less documented. People have dug really deep into Intel ME that they even found a bit that disables most of the ME.

On the other hand AMD is planning to use coreboot compatible open firmware in the next EPYC generation. Knowing AMD, it will eventually come to the consumer market too. (We'll see if it will be available before Red Hat drops x11)

Also there was a phoronix article recently that Intel is too messing around with Coreboot on Xeon.

It sounded like you got annoyed that I was guessing and it sounded like you tried to make it clear to me that the guess was not helpful to you with the use of sarcasm. I guess I misunderstood, sorry.

Regarding the actual questions: You asked how does it compare to Coreboot. Canoeboot is actually coreboot, just slightly modified to work with Free Software Foundation's rules but these rules are kind of absurd. See [1]. Libreboot is also modified Coreboot but one that's actually good. The difference between them is that Libreboot should be a bit easier to install and that they support different hardware.

In terms of battery life the same laptop with or without Coreboot should perform the same. Coreboot really only handles the booting. Battery life should depend on the "EC firmware", which is like a second chip on your motherboard that handles stuff like blinking LEDs or checking if your lid is opened or closed. It also depends on the OS itself so Linux vs Windows will make a difference. Canoeboot is an exception because it does not include "microcode updates" for ideological reasons. Microcode is code that runs on a "CPU inside of your CPU". Not updating it will A) make your CPU buggy and vulnerable to attacks like Spectre [2] and B) maybe even have worse battery life because Microcode can control the voltage your CPU runs at. More voltage -> more power (P ~ V^2)

[1] https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(security_vulnerability)

Well if it were closed source, it would be harder to repackage proprietary apps because you would not know how the snap "root filesystem" translates to $DISTRO root filesystem.

Because some apps are only packaged as snaps so if you want them to be accessible to users, you have to install snapd. Flatpak can still be the default which on non-Canonical distros already is. Which why I don't even worry about snap becoming the standard.

I haven't read the multi episode argument between him and the person from freedesktop but the more I see comments like yours the more I'm inclined to side with him. (Though skimming his linux related blogs makes him look like an edgy kid to me.)

Your first source does not prove he is a nazi sympathizer. It just says he does not want to ban nazis from his discord. That's 2 different things. It could for example mean that he does not want to ban people that some person labels nazis. (everyone on reddit that disagrees with me is a nazi)

The second source is made from a clown. That's the same guy that's suspected of doing the Stallman hitpiece. (it was at some point hosted from his IP or something) That article is full of half-truths. For example it frames Stallman's opinions on age of consent like he is a sex offender. Or his jokes about not caring about what will happen with his body after his death like he goes around munching.

I guess my point is that overblowing things only digs deeper trenches between the "sides" for no reason. I am not arguing that he is innocent, just that your comment might make some people think that "the wokies are trying to cancel vaxry" and ignore even legitimate critiques of him (or generally ${CONTROVERSIAL_PERSON}).

You simply use a different packaging format as I said in the previous comment.

I'm not arguing whether snap or flatpak is better. Flatpak is better.

But your arguments are going against each other. You disagree that FSF should tell you what software you can use but then you want to tell other users what software they can use. If you use flatpak despite of FSF's opinions, you should let people use snap despite of your opinion.

You are confused and mean. You cannot compare 2 different laptops and say that one has worse battery management because of coreboot. You would need to have the same laptop with and without coreboot to do any comparison.

I don't really get what you are trying to say in the second paragraph but Canoeboot is not a good daily driver because it's basically a "drug substitute" for GNU dummies. The author of it does not recommend using it. Use Libreboot instead as it does not break your CPU.

My guess: Generally it should not be that different since most of it is handled by the EC firmware. (Proprietary is OK in FSF's eyes if it's baked into the hardware) But Canoeboot does not include microcode updates which could affect the CPU's power management. (Clocks speed, Vcore, etc.)

Ok but KDE has official Snap packages so they already are "legitimizing it". Also snap won't be able to entshittify anything. Snapd is still open source, so you can just repackage the software for different package system.

This is a stupid argument. In FSF's eyes even having nonfree repository (ie. for drivers) is bad so this is completely irrelevant for anyone considering flatpak or snap. Both have nonfree stuff in there.

mainly hobbyists or some very specific feature. For example antiX for old hardware or Spiral Linux for the better installer, gaming specific distros for gaming etc. Also there are protest distros which advertise not having something - usually SystemD.

Don’t introduce proprietary crap just so companies can profit off of it.

I agree but I think it's the user who should be able to make the informed choice (ie. during installation)