Hector Martin

Like do you *realize* the blatant doublethink this whole thing reeks of? "Our users dislike blobs, so instead of asking them to enable blobs, were going to provide blobs in a way they don't have to care about so they won't be disgusted by our blobs"

But the blobs are there anyway in much more places, even in the SD card or touchscreen controller - I doubt I have to explain that to *you* :P

What's important to me is whether I have to reach for non-free blobs when I build software to run on the user-oriented execution unit, and whether those blobs run on that unit itself. Getting rid of blobs contained in the hardware is also important, but it's a next, distinct step

Why? Why is that important to you? Do you get digital cooties if you touch a blob? Not running blobs on the main CPU has practical advantages. Not *touching* blobs with the main CPU serves no purpose. That's just FSF religious nonsense.

It's about clear boundaries. 100% of PureOS is free software, with all the user freedom benefits it brings. If it had non-free repos with blobs, it wouldn't be true anymore. And introducing blobs into OS for devices that could very well embed it themselves is not worth it.

Sure, the blob is still there. But so are the blobs in all the other microcontrollers there that were already self-contained. Why make the OS "99% free plus some blobs" when you control the hardware it runs on and can maintain that boundary?

Because the boundary isn't doing anything for the user. It's religious. What blobs you run has practical consequences. What blobs you touch with the CPU doesn't. The FSF has built a narrative that touching blobs is bad, and the tradeoffs to implement it hurt users.

"100% of PureOS is free software (required blobs not considered part of PureOS)" "100% of this burger is gluten-free (burger definition excludes the buns)" "100% of this car is electric (combustion engine required to drive hybrid powertrain is a separate purchase)"