So, for example, the Librem 5 is all about choosing hardware which has persistent firmware so that they don't need to load it from the OS. They go out of the way to prevent it from being updated too. That's the path they're taking to seeking FSF endorsement for their products.
Conversation
> They go out of the way to prevent it from being updated too.
That's FUD that keeps being repeated over and over again. Nothing updates the firmware (or suggests updating it) on Librem 5 automatically, but users are always able to update it if they really want.
1
Your claims are untrue.
Not everything critical of your employer is FUD.
Purism makes devices less secure and offer less freedom through crippling them. Those are facts. It's the opposite of making things better.
It's also incredibly hypocritical for you to be claiming that...
1
You work for a company entirely based around spreading FUD and misleading users.
You trick users into thinking you're selling them devices with open hardware and firmware.
You do the opposite of making things more open.
It's simply a bunch of inaccurate branding/marketing.
1
You sell users devices that are less secure and less open for exorbitant prices. It's the equivalent of greenwashing.
Choosing less secure components and designing around loading firmware from the OS does not make the closed source hardware and firmware go away. It's all there.
1
Preventing the OS from updating firmware does not mean there isn't firmware. And to be clear, Purism goes beyond simply not shipping the firmware updates.
They go out of the way to cripple hardware to prevent updating firmware from the OS at all. It's the core focus for them.
1
Show a single way the Librem 5 is "crippled to prevent updating firmware".
Spoiler alert: you can't, because this is just a lie.
1
1
I don't even understand what you're trying to argue when pursuing this is an explicit point for marketing:
puri.sm/posts/librem5-
Not particularly interested in demonstrating how that isn't an isolated choice or talking about the SoC configuration shipped to users. Why bother?
1
You're falsely accusing me of lying, and I have no interest in further discussion.
1
So, in other words, you cannot point to a single way the user is prevented from upgrading the firmware. Just as I said.
The SPI flash that the article talks about can be reflashed by the user. The same applies to other separated blobs, like WiFi firmware. You are mistaken.
2
1
I'm talking about not being able to update firmware from the OS even with a different OS. I pointed to an example right above, from your own site. I'm not mistaken about this but rather you're misrepresenting my statements and making false claims in response to them.
Claiming that I'm being dishonest when that is very plainly what you're doing and what your company has a consistent pattern of doing is quite rich.