Some of the pages like this on FSF’s website make no sense to me. I’ve looked at this page several times over the past few years; the only distros I recall bein

Some of the pages like this on FSF’s website make no sense to me. I’ve looked at this page several times over the past few years; the only distros I recall being added recently are Guix and PureOS. Dragora is dead, Dynebolic is fossilised, Ututo’s website isn’t even online anymore. Trisquel, Hyperbola, and Parabola are on life support (no disrespect intended to the maintainers). Guix and PureOS are of course projects full of vitality and don’t look to be leaving us any time soon - but that would mean they are the only two highly-active distros that fit the FSF’s definition of a free operating system. Out of 100s of distributions of (GNU/)Linux are these really the only FSF-approved free ones? - if so, that seems like a problem; if not, why not update the list, or why maintain the list at all? This is like the list of FSF-approved hardware - in terms of freedom-respecting laptops, you’ve got the Librem, and then you’ve got a bunch of third-party refurbished laptops manufactured 10+ years ago where a skilled hacker was able to flash the firmware. It’s not the FSF’s fault that manufacturers don’t respect user freedom, but it’s still a pretty dire state of affairs, and I question the utility of maintaining lists like this as ‘these are the good ones’ instead of ‘this shows just how much more work is needed’. It’s interesting that these old pieces of hardware can be hacked to respect user freedom (the weekend I spent Librebooting my X200 was a fun project), but I don’t think anyone could honestly suggest most people should run them daily, that’d cripple most users’ needs.