I fully believe in software freedom (including favoring the GPL), and am trying to push it forward with this argument. I just see using a "6300 with microcode 2019-12-18" as the exact same compromise as using a "6200 with microcode 2011-11-14", regardless that the first blob was loaded at runtime while the second blob was loaded at the factory. Neither one lets me audit or modify my processor. There aren't many performant processors that do let you do such things, so the FSF is willing to compromise on systems with the second type of processor. I argue that they should extend that same pragmatism to the first type of processor as well.

Ultimately, the goal of a GNU/Linux distribution is to create a fully Free GNU/Linux environment. A fully free system would be a worthy goal, but Guix is not attempting such a thing (say by refusing to run if it detects hardware that has non-free firmware in flash). Rather they preemptively compromise by ignoring blobs stored in flash, but refuse the same compromise when those blobs would be loaded at runtime. This is completely backwards given that blobs loaded into auxiliary processors' RAM by Free software running on the main processor are actually more under the control of Free software.

And sure, nonguix exists. But I've gotten the impression that when you interact with the Guix community (eg irc), they will give you a bit of a cold shoulder for using nonguix because it is "not free software", even though you're making the exact same compromise as anyone else with a non-Free microprocessor or non-free auxiliary processor firmware. So ultimately I'm arguing that community norms, as led by the FSF, need to change here. They're stuck with an outdated model that simply ignores embedded firmware, rather than engaging with the nuance of labeling each part of a system as "free" or "non-free"

It sounds like we have very similar beliefs. I think the FSF should acknowledge that microcode updates and such are odious but tolerable moral compromises and that we should continue to work for a future where we have complete freedom to modify, repair, and otherwise use our machines as we see fit.

However, for fun, I'm going to do my best to steelman the FSF position: The use of non-free software when no free alternative exists is tolerable. The material difference between firmware that comes with the hardware or microcode that comes with the CPU versus a downloadable update is that the update is voluntary, and thus involves a willful violation of the principle of freedom. By doing so one becomes actively complicit in the erosion of freedom.

I also agree that they shouldn't be jerks on mailing lists and IRC, but have some empathy for persons that aren't so fortunate that they can eschew all non-free software.

I think the FSF position comes to down to 1. It's what they've always done and 2. They don't want to be distributing any nonfree software, even when it wouldn't become part of the Free environment

Whereas having a background in embedded design, I can't ignore that I have many more devices running nonfree software than Free software, despite trying to use Free software wherever I can. In particular, my fully Free desktop relies on non-free { monitor, monitor remote, keyboard, mouse, USB hubs, USB hub PS (power supply), USB switch, UPS, network power switch, circuit breaker, ethernet switch, ethernet switch PS, GPON terminal, GPON PS, nonfree BIOS on router }, in addition to the contentious non-free { video card, network card, CPU }. Any and all of those things could be replaced with a Free equivalent, but at the cost of attention that would be better spent elsewhere. In a world being eaten by software, the best we can do is hope for well-defined interfaces with nonfree systems, for our Free systems to interoperate with.

Perhaps a good way forward would be to split (Nonguix, Debian non-free, etc) into two separate categories depending on whether a package runs in the main security domain (drivers, system software, utilities/applications), or is to be loaded into an auxiliary processor (firmware blobs). Then after this distinction became widely accepted, the Free-first distros would hopefully become more comfortable including the firmware blobs, making a better user experience for their Free environments without impinging upon the freedom within.

(FWIW your steelman isn't it - it would seem to indicate that buying a computer with MS Windows preloaded is good from a software freedom perspective)

And here is the error of your logic: "is voluntary, and thus involves a willful violation of the principle of freedom".

Principle of freedom, in the context of the FSF, has always referred to user/recipient freedom.

A user voluntarily (of their on unconstrained freedom) making a (informed) choice for themselves, by definition does not violate their own freedom, they are exercising their freedom. You are contradicting yourself.

Complicit-ness can be debated with regards to purchasing decisions, not with regards to updating firmware.