3 ms·

The problem reported by the issue is "A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software." This may have been "resolved" but I don't think t

The problem reported by the issue is "A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software." This may have been "resolved" but I don't think this has been "fixed". Shuttleworth's comment makes it sound like this issue is either invalid or a won't fix. Even Chrome and Android devices that are available in local PC stores almost always include proprietary software. Perhaps I am missing something but is Shuttleworth now saying that non-free software isn't a problem?

vidarh 13y ago
I don't know about Shutlleworth, but for me the big deal is not whether or not they include proprietary software, but whether or not free alternatives are readily available for those who care. And there we've seen a massive shift. I ordered my laptop without OS from a major vendor. I can buy dozens of cheap Android or "real" Linux boxes at Amazon, and every bit of software on most of them either are or can be replaced by free alternatives.
cbhl 13y ago
A valid concern, but x86/x86_64-based Chromebooks have a F/OSS BIOS and drivers -- for example, Google went out of their way to contribute the relevant bits to coreboot. Installing GNU/Linux on such systems is straightforward and well-documented (flip the physical or virtual developer switch; enable USB boot from a shell; boot installer or OS from USB) too. Proprietary firmware means dealing with stupid things like hard-coded checks for "Windows Boot Manager" or "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" in UEFI firmware (http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html).
- dave1010uk 13y ago
  That's good to know. So are we now saying that proprietary software on a device is fine, as long as it can easily be replaced with fully open source software?
  - cbhl 13y ago
    I personally think that the proprietary software on Chromebooks is a means to an end -- the functionality provided by the proprietary software appeases retailers enough to get them to sell it.
    - dave1010uk 13y ago
      Agreed. This is definitely good progress, but (going back to the bug report) this issue hasn't been completed yet, so should still be open.

vidarh 13y ago

I don't know about Shutlleworth, but for me the big deal is not whether or not they include proprietary software, but whether or not free alternatives are readily available for those who care. And there we've seen a massive shift. I ordered my laptop without OS from a major vendor. I can buy dozens of cheap Android or "real" Linux boxes at Amazon, and every bit of software on most of them either are or can be replaced by free alternatives.

cbhl 13y ago

A valid concern, but x86/x86_64-based Chromebooks have a F/OSS BIOS and drivers -- for example, Google went out of their way to contribute the relevant bits to coreboot. Installing GNU/Linux on such systems is straightforward and well-documented (flip the physical or virtual developer switch; enable USB boot from a shell; boot installer or OS from USB) too. Proprietary firmware means dealing with stupid things like hard-coded checks for "Windows Boot Manager" or "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" in UEFI firmware (http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html).

dave1010uk 13y ago
That's good to know. So are we now saying that proprietary software on a device is fine, as long as it can easily be replaced with fully open source software?
- cbhl 13y ago
  I personally think that the proprietary software on Chromebooks is a means to an end -- the functionality provided by the proprietary software appeases retailers enough to get them to sell it.
  - dave1010uk 13y ago
    Agreed. This is definitely good progress, but (going back to the bug report) this issue hasn't been completed yet, so should still be open.