PSA: Do not use the Linux-libre kernel, since it removes security mitigations[1] and suppresses kernel warnings about vulnerable microcode[2] for ideological reasons.
@anarchopunk_girl@isf@freedo The goal isn't to make the system less secure but reject a power imbalance that exists with all proprietary software. The microcode should be free for all of the same reasons that any software should be free. At present we can't make our own updates - In the current scenario, only Intel/AMD can do this, which if you think about it places them in a position of power over users. Is it more right that only Intel & AMD can do this?
@jxself@isf@freedo I'm not sure how rejecting microcode updates, when you are already running proprietary microcode anyway,/and it only makes your system less secure without really fighting back against the idea of proprietary microcode, helps anything though.
@anarchopunk_girl@isf@freedo For now it's better to reject their position of power. These situations of using the built-in microcode vs accepting updates from Intel/AMD are not the same. In both cases the user is just as powerless with or without updates but we can make a social and ethical stance that Intel/AMD should not have more power than the users do in developing software updates that the users cannot.
@jxself@isf@freedo I'm not sure how rejecting microcode updates could possibly actually make a stance in that regard though? Like it's not going to actually have any kind of effect on Intel or AMD at all. Nor does it materially change anything for users. You're taking the stand purely just by harming yourself without actually striking back at Intel or AMD in any way. Again, you're still already running proprietary microcode, and I still don't see how already running proprietary microcode is different from accepting proprietary microcode updates at all — you haven't actually explained that, you've merely stated that it is different.
@anarchopunk_girl@isf@freedo I'm sorry I thought it was quite clear. We can at least turn the power imbalance into a stalemate. Since you can't do anything to your processor, better that Intel/AMD also can't either. That's not as far along the axis of user rights as it should be but it's better than having it all the way over on Intel/AMD's side. And hopefully in time, and with work, the playing field will be moved more into the direction of the user with things like: https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9058-everything_you_want_to_know_about_x86_microcode_but_might_have_been_afraid_to_ask
@isf@freedo that's not remotely what I did or said at all? Where did you pull that preposterous strawman from? I was saying that we are all already forced to use proprietary microcode anyway. Your processor is ALREADY running proprietary microcode, dude. So accepting updates to it doesn't seem like it makes a difference to me. I'm not justifying anything on the basis of the bandwagon fallacy or anything of the sort, you're just lying. Also, are you seriously arguing that users of proprietary software are immoral, not just those who produce it?
@anarchopunk_girl@freedo I believe that recommending, distributing and/or encouraging others to use proprietary software should be conceived as immoral since it promotes people losing control over their own activities when using computers.
@isf@freedo in this case, they wouldn't be losing any control though, because they already didn't have it, and at least they would get fucking security updates. Also, sometimes there simply aren't free alternatives to achieve something. But I can see you're just an idiotic fanatic, not someone with a well thought through and nuanced understanding of the realities of dealing with the proprietary software empire.
Add comment