[Freedom-misc] Does this mean Librem 15 can be Librebooted?

svhaab at gmail.com svhaab at gmail.com
Thu Oct 25 17:49:13 CEST 2018


 > no, this is just ad hom.

I should not have talked about infatuation regarding you. I did not see you  
are a new
member of the forum. I thought you knew about the
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/librem-15-freelibre-and-open-source-laptop-respects-your-essential-freedoms
posts.

 > youre only saying "hes wrong"

Read
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/librem-15-freelibre-and-open-source-laptop-respects-your-essential-freedoms

 > Then libreboot cannot be right.

That was ironic. Libreboot is the capacity about this field. If RMS thinks he  
knows better
he has to provide documentation.

 > to resolve the apparent contradiction between those two statements.

If a person says if I jump 50 yards then I win the olympics, then what he  
says is
right. It is irrelevant because he not going to jump 50 yards.
If RMS says if a fused x86 intel cpu enables installing unsigned bioses
and we get the source software firmware then the user will control the  
firmware
then it is correct. But it cannot be done because no one can get round the
verification.
Has purism documented a running fused x86 intel cpu?
I wrote RMS telling him the “Getting rid of the signature checking is an  
important step. While it doesn’t give us free code for the firmware, it  
means that users will really have control of the firmware once we get free  
code for it.” statement was a mistake. Because people would
think a fused x86 intel cpu is an option.
If someone tells you made a mistake. You either acknowledge the mistake. Or  
you
rebut. RMS graciously held off from the librem notebook in his next email.

 > now we get to facts, thank you. thats all i was saying before.

I did mention verification in my previous post.
I did not explain further because I assumed you knew about it.

 > apart from using older hardware (which could become unavailable or scarce)  
this seems to be the best option

Is what you want to know if librem's activities provides more secure  
computers assuming free
software is more secure?

If you think free software is more secure then debian main and trisquel are  
more secure than
ubuntu because ubuntu contains non free software. And it is difficult to tell  
if non free
software does something you do not want. Even if librem gets able to run more
free software you cannot tell if the librem get more secure. Because the  
backdoors can
be located in the non free parts of the software
https://puri.sm/learn/software-freedom-in-perspective/
This diagram is very misleading. It purports that a higher percentage of free  
software results
in a more secure computer. It is an erroneous conclusion.

 >  only checking the bios against it is disabled by a fused circuit. as  
un-fond as i am of this sort of design

I doubt it.

 > which could become unavailable or scarce

That should not stop you from staying critical if someone claims he can turn  
a current intel cpu
free software.

 > best option

On
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/librem-15-freelibre-and-open-source-laptop-respects-your-essential-freedoms
it says any other intel computer is probably not worse in terms of the cpu.

 > sounds more like an unexpected change of subject. there seems to be  
progress (beyond using me cleaner) without removing the key. or isnt there?

If you read
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/librem-15-freelibre-and-open-source-laptop-respects-your-essential-freedoms
and knew about the persons writing the posts you would not write what you  
have.


More information about the Freedom-misc mailing list