←back to thread

Qubes OS will ship pre-installed on Purism’s security-focused Librem 13 laptop

(arstechnica.com)
154 points walterbell | 4 comments | 15 Dec 15 07:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.231s | source
Show context
INTPenis ◴[15 Dec 15 09:24 UTC] No.10736741[source]▶
Since I'm completely surprised by this project and very attracted to it I thought it was best to google around for some perspective. Found this http://www.pcworld.com/article/2960524/laptop-computers/why-...

Among other things. My first question was, is the hardware open? Couldn't find an answer to that.

Edit: Apparently revision 2 of Purism will possibly have Coreboot.

replies(3): >>10736758 #>>10736798 #>>10736827 #
creshal ◴[15 Dec 15 09:52 UTC] No.10736827[source]▶
The CPU uses proprietary, binary microcode blobs.

The graphics chip needs proprietary, binary firmware blobs.

The ethernet chip needs proprietary, binary firmware blobs.

The BIOS is a proprietary, binary firmware blob.

"Respects your freedom" my ass. The only difference to a whitebox laptop is marketing. Dell's or Lenovo's linux offerings are just as "free".

(And chromebooks with Coreboot are, technically, more free than both.)

replies(4): >>10736975 #>>10737206 #>>10739064 #>>10739904 #
nextos ◴[15 Dec 15 11:40 UTC] No.10737206[source]▶
Actually, a RockChip based Chromebook like C201 is completely free except for the 3D acceleration. Not even CPU microcodes. And it's dirty cheap.

I wonder why Purism didn't simply commission such a machine with the right 3D chip instead of going with a non-free and expensive option.

I would also love similar initiatives in the mobile space, but I reckon it is more challenging. Neo900 and Pyra are kind of cool though. And I'm hoping Jolla open sources Sailfish OS later this month or early new year.

replies(4): >>10737228 #>>10737541 #>>10740311 #>>10745038 #
creshal ◴[15 Dec 15 11:45 UTC] No.10737228[source]▶
> I wonder why Purism didn't simply commission such a machine with the right 3D chip instead of going with a non-free and expensive option.

Because they can sell the "expensive" option (which, for the OEM itself, isn't even too expensive) at a much higher premium.

> I would also love similar initiatives in the mobile space, but I reckon it is more challenging.

In the mobile space it would be an even bigger exercise in futility: There is no, and will never be, a baseband chip with a free firmware. The FCC made that pretty clear back in the OpenMoko days – use our NSA-approved proprietary blob or you'll never sell in the developed world.

replies(4): >>10737623 #>>10737654 #>>10737849 #>>10738650 #
Gregordinary ◴[15 Dec 15 13:38 UTC] No.10737654[source]▶
The FreeCalypso project is working on free baseband firmware with an older TI Chipset. If I recall from their mailing list, which is fairly active, they have voice calls working now. It will of course not be a smartphone, and it'll be GSM only.

https://www.freecalypso.org/

replies(1): >>10737680 #
creshal ◴[15 Dec 15 13:43 UTC] No.10737680[source]▶
How do they plan to get it FCC certified? Without FCC certification, it may not be legally used outside shielded testing environments.
replies(1): >>10737807 #
1. Gregordinary ◴[15 Dec 15 14:12 UTC] No.10737807[source]▶
I'm actually not sure, recently joined the mailing list and have been passively monitoring.

Would it make a difference if the chipset being used was already used for a cellphone that was FCC certified? If I put DD-WRT on my router, do I need to re-apply for FCC certification? (Wondering)

replies(1): >>10737897 #
2. creshal ◴[15 Dec 15 14:30 UTC] No.10737897[source]▶
I'm not sure whether the certification guidelines for wifi and cell devices are the same.

For Wifi it's surprisingly strict:

• Every antenna+transmitter configuration has to be certified separately (that's why Lenovo and other laptop vendors have Wifi card whitelists and refuse booting with uncertified chips installed).

• The software that directly drives the hardware must be certified to conform to the transmission power limits etc.

For DD-WRT and others neither is a problem, because the hardware combination has been certified by the router vendor, and DD-WRT uses the wifi chip vendor's firmware blob to drive the hardware, which is certified by the vendor.

replies(2): >>10738577 #>>10738715 #
3. lmns ◴[15 Dec 15 16:15 UTC] No.10738577[source]▶
>DD-WRT uses the wifi chip vendor's firmware blob to drive the hardware, which is certified by the vendor.

At least for many Atheros-based chipsets they use ath9k instead of the vendor blobs.

4. throwaway7767 ◴[15 Dec 15 16:37 UTC] No.10738715[source]▶
> Every antenna+transmitter configuration has to be certified separately (that's why Lenovo and other laptop vendors have Wifi card whitelists and refuse booting with uncertified chips installed).

Are you sure about that? The fact that not every vendor has such a lock suggests to me that there is no legal requirement for it.