
Libreboot T400 laptop now FSF-certified to respect your freedom - awqrre
https://www.fsf.org/news/libreboot-t400-laptop-now-fsf-certified-to-respect-your-freedom
======
mark_l_watson
In principle, this is a good thing but in practice you are not getting much
computer for your money.

I do a lot of work using an HP Stream 11 running Debian Linux and recently for
fun I have been writing and developing Ruby code on a Raspberry Pi. Even as a
long term financial supporter of the FSF, I have to question why not to just
use a cheap but capable modern $200 laptop?

It is unfortunate that more mainstream manufacturers don't offer FSF-certified
versions of their best selling laptops.

~~~
mehrdada
> _why not to just use a cheap but capable modern $200 laptop?_

The problem is that those newer machines generally require some proprietary
binary blobs in the firmware to be loaded on boot that are loaded and that is
considered unacceptable by this FSF certification program. It happens that the
hardware for these particular laptops work without any requiring any non-free
binary blobs to be loaded.

~~~
cuckcuckspruce
The FSF has no problem with non-free binary blobs on hardware, as long as
they're burned into ROM[0]. The idea is that the firmware burned into ROM is
not user serviceable - that it's never intended to be replaced and is
intrinsically a part of the hardware. To have a completely different view when
it comes to firmware that is loaded at initialization time seems a bit silly
to me. This code is just as intrinsically a part of the function of the
device, but instead of having to swap a board back to get a firmware update
the firmware can be updated in the field.

[0] [https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-
bios.html](https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html), specifically: 'The
ethical issues of free software arise because users obtain programs and
install them in computers; they don't really apply to hidden embedded
computers, or the BIOS burned in a ROM, or the microcode inside a processor
chip, or the firmware that is wired into a processor in an I/O device. In
aspects that relate to their design, those things are software; but as regards
copying and modification, they may as well be hardware. The BIOS in ROM was,
indeed, not a problem.'

~~~
mehrdada
My understanding is they draw the line at updatability: if someone else is
able to change the code, then _they can exercise unjust power over you_ (i.e.
there's a power asymmetry between you and the vendor over who controls the
device), whereas if it is just a fact of life that you cannot update a mask
ROM, it is possible that there is no malicious intent from the vendor. It
makes sense from the historical perspective, when it was cheaper to use a mask
ROM than to incorporate flash memory, and you had to think hard about whether
you have an incentive to push updates to the device. The economic incentive to
the vendor consequently acted as a proxy metric to distinguish hardware from
software.

Admittedly, the line is more blurry now: you can do _unethical_ things in mask
ROMs (via crypto) to exert power over the user, a la trusted boot and DRM, and
you can make things updatable by accident despite having no intentions to do
so simply because flash is cheaper and more straightforward to install than
mask ROMs.

