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

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.)

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

We need purists like the fsf. They are truly fighting the good fight, but I am also happy to see people be just more free too, even with some compromise.

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.

Personally I’m a fan of smoke signals. No proprietary blobs in sight.

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.

They’re 100% free in the sense that they don’t ship closed code, ever. That is the goal to attain. However, we’re not there yet. For that, hardware needs to be open. Hardware can’t be as easily be made by a group of volunteers as software. Like at all. To solve this ‘transient’ state, all popular distros allow adding some sort of ‘nonfree’ repo so that, you know, shit can work. For instance, you are free to install Debian and not enable the nonfree repo, which is not enabled by default. You are also free to wonder later why your webcam doesn’t work, you can’t print, your bluetooth headset won’t pair and your fancy gaming GPU outputs 10 FPS @800x600.

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.

Can someone educate me on why the more common ones like Debian and Arch aren’t on this list? Every single day Linux communities force me to look at computer stuff in a different light

Edit: I learned a lot and accidentally incited discourse oops

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.

The FSF has an ass-backwards approach to firmware, leading to only these distros fulfilling their requirements.

Their preference for firmware is as follows:

1. Firmware that’s open source (fair enough)
2. Firmware that can’t be updated (i.e. devices that are flashed once at the factory)
3. Firmware that can be updated (CPU microcode, firmware for GPUs, SSDs, etc)

As Linux includes patching of CPU microcode on boot (to fix security vulnerabilities and bugs) the default build of Linux doesn’t fulfill those requirements.

For that goal, really stick by the FSF recommendations, for that, they are perfect as they have strict requirements.

But I think calling other GNU/Linux distros black box only because some drivers are proprietary is a bit too far, some people just prefer a “minimum damage” approach and that’s a compromise everyone needs to decide for themselves. If I were living in China or Iran, however, then I would exclusively run distros like that as well.

Edit: typo

suckless sucks. it’s an interesting science experiment but no normal person would ever find software from that realm of thought useful

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.