When it Comes to Firmware, the FSF and Its Founder RMS Won the Argument (But Not the Fight, Yet)
2 days ago: Trusting the Evil Maids
People who have long defamed Richard Stallman (RMS) do not want us to have computer security, so they brand back doors "security".
This recent article did a decent job explaining what it means to insist on free software at a level close to hardware (where the code can still be altered, it requires no physical changes to devices themselves). Ending on a positive note it says: "the open hardware community has evolved to a point where even CPUs are designed in the open, which you can design your own version of."
Then it has a go at the FSF: "But not all hardware can be implemented as RISC-V, and so if you want a full system that builds RISC-V you may still need components of the system that were originally built for other architectures but that would work with RISC-V, such as a network card or a GPU. And because the FSF has done everything in their power to disincentivise people who would otherwise be well situated to build free versions of the low-level software required to support your hardware, you may now be in the weird position where we seem to have somehow skipped a step."
What the FSF does - as Alex Oliva explained the other day - prioritises security (hence freedom) over immediate, short-term comfort.
That the FSF remains true to its original mission is something to be commended, not ridiculed by nitpicking. Questions from the audience, sent to RMS, have long said something to the effect of, "even if all software was free (libre), what about the hardware?"
RMS always responds in the same way (he grew accustomed to this sort of concern-trolling spiel). The "whataboutism" tactics are physiological manipulation means of discouraging those who move in the correct direction.
The FSF has three letter in its acronym and the S stands for software. It might as well stands for security. █