Scoopta

But Linux also has containers and I haven't found a networking setup I can't do with it so while this may be true it seems anecdotal

I'm going to just point out that hating all white males is just as backwards as hating all older generations. Hating anyone for stuff like that is stupid period. Not saying you do, it's just the last sentence feels like you're trying to appeal to people using the same BS you're arguing against.

Probably tbh

You can have a file in 2 folders, they're called hardlinks

And IMO if anything this is Nvidia's doing, arch is just being arch, like it sucks but I also don't see a problem with arch in this instance.

Further increase confusion by having error pages where all 3 are green

Thanks, that is indeed dystopian

Can someone summerize the article, for some reason it thinks I'm using AdBlock despite not and won't let me actually read it

The very silly argument the FSF is trying to make is that device A is not programmable because the firmware is baked into the HW effectively making it part of the HW rather than a separate entity. Therefore it's a HW limitation and not proprietary software. Device B on the other hand has proprietary software uploaded to it which is not to be allowed under any circumstances and therefore must be neutered. I call it silly because as you so rightfully point out, the firmware blob could be literally the same exact blob, just stored differently

Yeah, that would be a much more consistent setup and I agree with everything you said here. I just don't understand how being less programmable is good, it isn't, I don't see any world in which it is unless there is truly NO firmware involved and it's pure HW.

This is exactly my sentiment on the matter too. Firmware is not software in practice although it is in theory. Proprietary firmware that can be upgraded is better than firmware burned into a ROM although the FSF disagrees. I personally run nearly 100% FOSS...S as in software, I have no open firmware, I wish I did...but it just isn't realistic at this point in time.

This is basically the same argument that caused the libreboot vs gnuboot thing and I just personally don't get it. It seems to me like the FSF is letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Having a FOSS driver isn't something to be celebrated it's something to be punished if the firmware isn't also FOSS. Yes, ofc, FOSS firmware is better than closed firmware, but when almost no modern hardware has that as an option, it's not even something you can really vote on with your wallet unless you just run ancient hardware all the time.

It matters because for me, a good chunk of the FOSS benefit is the auditability of code. Being able to make changes is nice and that's the freedom bit, but being able to audit it is also a huge benefit. If the code is not running on the main CPU then the driver on the main CPU can contain possible exploits of firmware using the IOMMU etc so it becomes more tolerable than a closed source driver. Basically a firmware vulnerability effectively becomes a hardware vulnerability as opposed to a driver running with full kernel privileges and no oversight or containment.