That's not true. If distros package closed source firmware updates the manufacturer has the ability to provide updates to people's computer via that system. I mean, that's the whole point and in a trustworthy environment that's a good thing. Maybe have a look at https://wiki.debian.org/Microcode#CPU_microcode_non-freeness (I'm not sure whether I'm just misinterpreting your comment or whether there is a knowledge gap, just to make sure we talk about the same thing :) ).
> By withholding that information they are effectively eliminating the choice, and restricting users' freedom.
You are mixing up agency and software freedom, it's clear that you won't see eye to eye with the FSF as long as you do so.
I'm not even vigorously defending not showing the note about existing firmware updates, if Guix really does so. I'd prefer a note. Just what it would mean and how problematic closed firmware would be seemed like it needed a clarification here.
> If distros package closed source firmware updates the manufacturer has the ability to provide updates to people's computer via that system.
That is not what linux-libre is doing/refusing to do. What linux-libre is doing is censoring a message to their users that their microcode is out of date and their CPU has security vulnerabilities. They could've just left that in and let users make the choice whether to manually install the microcode updates or not.
> You are mixing up agency and software freedom
Agency is more important than software freedom. The FSF's problem is precisely their blind focus on "software freedom" when the definition of "software" can't even be precisely defined any more, to the detriment of everything else that affects users.
>Agency is more important than software freedom. The FSF's problem is precisely their blind focus on "software freedom" when the definition of "software" can't even be precisely defined any more, to the detriment of everything else that affects users
your refusal to accept FSFs right to adhere to its principles is bordering on the extreme. yet you constantly lob insults toward them as an organization. it does not help your points at all. they obviously hold different values to you. i think FSF is ok as long as they are clear about what they are doing and they are not trying to trick anyone. you have done absolutely nothing to demonstate otherwise in this whole exchange and instead you keep slinging FUD. i will repeat my question that i have asked so many times: has GNU or FSF anywhere claimed that they take a security-centric approach? as far as i know they have always taken a free-software approach. that they refuse to bend their principles to infantile screams is a big plus in my books
> By withholding that information they are effectively eliminating the choice, and restricting users' freedom.
You are mixing up agency and software freedom, it's clear that you won't see eye to eye with the FSF as long as you do so.
I'm not even vigorously defending not showing the note about existing firmware updates, if Guix really does so. I'd prefer a note. Just what it would mean and how problematic closed firmware would be seemed like it needed a clarification here.