Hard disagree. Only people that are already in linux-land should even think or talk about this, and only after they’re aware of what they depend on and whether they can even do that in the first place.

Main reason: biggest thing holding Linux back is user-base. The more users there are, the more that companies will actually care about supporting the OS. In the meantime, newbies to Linux need an OS that is as hassle free as possible that supports what they need. Windows and macOS have their downsides, but you can’t disagree that they work out of the box. You only get a few chances to get someone to even think about switching ecosystems, and going to a straight free distro is another huge hurdle on top of that. Most closed source applications only get tested on debian/rhel based distros anyway, I wouldn’t be able to do my my day job on a distro outside of that without some serious headache.

There are many closed source components that don’t have equivalent open source alternatives, and features are a thing that will snag many people. Most people aren’t technical.

no, i like my computer to work

I have to answer to this post directly… First of all: I am a member of the European free software foundation. I am since over 10 years.

Using those distributions is, sadly, a security risk!

Everybody must be absolutely clear about the fact that CPU microcode updates are property blobs, and therefore removed by those projects.

This means: Your CPU runs with only the build in firmware and is most likely vulnerable against many CPU level attacks. CPU bugs can only be fixed with microcode , and if you drop those from the systems you leave the systems vulnerable.

Full free software distributions are a important, but very esoteric.

OP claims even the kernel itself is non free software. So let me just cite the kernel archive

Is Linux Kernel Free Software?

Linux kernel is released under the terms of GNU GPL version 2 and is therefore Free Software as defined by the Free Software Foundation.

I heard that Linux ships with non-free “blobs”

Before many devices are able to communicate with the OS, they must first be initialized with the “firmware” provided by the device manufacturer. This firmware is not part of Linux and isn’t “executed” by the kernel – it is merely uploaded to the device during the driver initialization stage.

While some firmware images are built from free software, a large subset of it is only available for redistribution in binary-only form. To avoid any licensing confusion, firmware blobs were moved from the main Linux tree into a separate repository called linux-firmware.

It is possible to use Linux without any non-free firmware binaries, but usually at the cost of rendering a lot of hardware inoperable. Furthermore, many devices that do not require a firmware blob during driver initialization simply already come with non-free firmware preinstalled on them. If your goal is to run a 100% free-as-in-freedom setup, you will often need to go a lot further than just avoiding loadable binary-only firmware blobs.

https://www.kernel.org/faq.html

Calling Debian stable another black boxed closed OS is just rage bait.

Bruh is your CPU even source available?

The only option for true transparency is to build it from scratch, like at the logic gate level.

Those distros have ethical and legal value but they don’t magically make you better off.

Aren’t these shipped without any proprietary firmware, which you can try and if it works for you it works and use it but for many people these just won’t work and using stuff like arch/Debian/fedora/opensuse to name a few will work much better. Like they are great distros if they work for you use them but they are not for everyone.

Agree those are 100% free? I don’t know. It would take a lot of research to verify but I trust fsf as it is currently so think its likely the case. Agree to fully switch to a 100% free os? No. I need the nvidia driver. I would like to though. Believe that really any linux distro is a black box/closed os? No. Just having some binary blobs from vendors is a compromise but its not a deal breaker.

Calling a “regular” Linux desktop operating system being Black boxed or closed source is a bit too far in my opinion. I do not agree 100%, but I understand the concerns and points brought up in this discussion.

A post like this is a disservice to the majority everyone.

Even harmful as it promotes software that should be run only on rare hardware (eg RISC-V with all the fully hardware level open peripherals too) the extremely vast majority of users do not have any practical access to.
All with the premise on some technicality you don’t even explain (bcs then it would make it obvious, why such distros shouldn’t be used by majority).
And you don’t even mention that.

Not to mention saying that Linux distros are as bad as Windows locking you into closed code.

I mean lol. That’s is just intentionally dishonest.

It’s like claiming hydrogen gas is harmful to you in the same way as “standing” on the surface of the Sun.

This post makes me feel sad, bcs the basis you hinge on is an important PSA to spread around.
How else am I ever gonna get a decent open-hardware PC?

(And just to not be misunderstood, I love what FSF strands for and is doing all this time, it’s a beacon for the way forward - but we have to navigate to there.)

Ah… but then that’s not enough, you need to insure that the supply chain itself is 100% free! For example if you are using an Intel CPU, how can you verify it does what it says it does?

Enter precursor.dev ! Check this out if 100% free is not enough for you.

PS: honestly do what makes pragmatically your world, and that of the ones around you, better. Hopefully it is toward free software but IMHO if you have more agency with usage (which yes does overlap significantly with this) then it’s a powerful step to keep on doing so.

I think using major distros like Fedora, Ubuntu, or Debian is fine, because corporate backing often supports faster security fixes and better infrastructure.

The reduction in proprietary hardware that results from those systems is not meaningful in my view while the massive reduction in security and the greater inconvenience matter.

People have no idea how their hardware works. A card from NVIDIA has not just the NVIDIA drivers but a bunch of internal systems with additional firmware. Even your CPU may have an entire OS on it.

Hardware that allows its firmware to be updated is more open, not less, even if I currently only have proprietary firmware to load on it. And at least it can be updated. Simply not letting me upgrade the firmware does not magically make the hardware more open. Not allowing proprietary firmware for an open source operating system is just not an idea that resonates with me.

Would I prefer fully open source hardware and firmware? Yes. I am happy to see these options are slowly developing. In the meantime, we all run our software on proprietary hardware and drawing the line between hardware and software at a less convenient or less secure point is not making me any more free.

At least, that is my opinion man.

Better get an Open Hardware RISC V system, with stuff like the graphics, sound and elt/WiFi/Bt being Open Hardware too.

Then you can go with a fully open OS and it will actually make sense.

My priority in what I use is for it to work out-of-the-box, be secure, and not get in my way. For security reasons I do support the concept of 100% open-source purity (though I’m much softer on or even opposed to the “free” part of FOSS), but I’m not prepared to sacrifice convenience for that cause.

I dont agree. Life is a balance. You use proprietary software every day, everybody does. It exists in nearly every aspect of day to day life. You can never truly be free of it, but advocating for and using FOSS where possible is worthwhile anyway. Going fully blob-free would mean significantly more effort for what to me is not that much of an improvement to my life.

It’s the same reason i garden on my apartment balcony, but dont grow all my own food. I could probably just about manage it, but i’d be spending every second of my available time to keep the thing going just to reduce my already infrequent grocery trips (but not to zero since i still need soap and toothpaste).

I’m happy with the additional features, security, and transparency provided by Fedora over the OS my laptop was designed to run. I go through some level of effort to use Linux, but nothing crazy. If there was some widely available hardware with decent performance, price, and comparable features, made with ethical labor and that worked with Debian with the deblobbed kernel, i’d definitely give it a shot. Currently it’s too much work for too little gain for me.

But if it works for you, that’s awesome. I respect the commitment to your ideals.