Linux

I understand your perspective, but I think there's a deeper context to consider about Linux-libre. The project's goal isn’t just about making hardware work or not. It's about promoting software freedom and raising awareness of the reliance on proprietary firmware, and help people to be certain that never nonfree software is installed on hardware without them knowing.

Yes, Linux-libre disables dynamic firmware loading, which can render some devices non-functional. But that's not a flaw in Linux-libre itself; it reflects the larger issue that many hardware vendors don't provide free firmware. Linux-libre isn't against firmware per se, but it draws a line against proprietary blobs to encourage transparency and community-driven solutions. It tolerates non-updatable on-device firmware because it's unavoidable for now (pragmatism), but the ultimate aim is to promote hardware that doesn't rely on non-free programs at all.

Regarding security patches, it's true that proprietary firmware can bring updates, but it also comes with risks: you can't audit or modify it, and you depend entirely on the vendor. With free firmware, the community can audit and improve it openly, creating more trustworthy systems.

However, when it comes to assert that Linux-libre removes warnings about the use of vulnerable firmware, well, this claim lacks specific evidence. The Linux-libre project focuses on removing proprietary components and does not typically alter security warnings related to firmware. In fact there usually is a "Missing free firmware" message that you can find reading dmesg output.

So, while Linux-libre might not be for everyone, it's more than a technical project. This is an ethical stance for a freer and more transparent computing future. If anything, it highlights the real issue: the need for manufacturers to provide free firmware.