Seems like the type of project that, originating out of defending against user-hostility or user-negligence, would have some (possibly overly?) passionate people behind it.

Bunch of bigoted ass holes!

I follow this rule and I'm not a bigoted asshole. Anyone who brings gender politics into a technical discussion is the bigot and should be banned or ignored. This applies to both sides of the debate.

All of the events that first come to mind when I think of the movement are very recent, after 2016. Like a UK teacher refusing to use a student's preferred pronouns in 2022, JK Rowling catching heat for her views in September 2019 and Canada judging a lawsuit by a trans person) when that person's identity is relevant) in 2019 too.

There wasn't any mainstream news coverage about them (whether positive or negative) in 2016, and I think the increasing news coverage since then (whether positive or negative) is a sign that they've started to gain acceptance. Negative news about a movement would only be published if those part of the movement are relevant.

I just think we can try to be more understanding of the recent past. We didn't always have the same views we do now...

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/54by6w/comment/d80uu...

The idea she was fired for being trans is ridiculous. I think it's more credible that she's a narcissist pathological lier.

Anyone with a real job in a moderately Big Co. can tell you that.

Look at the who's who of the Linux foundation and it's all the big tech lackeys deciding everything. Even very questionable companies like Huawei are highly represented. I don't call that anti-corporate.

The Linux foundation is not equal to Linux. The entire point of the Linux foundation is to interface with the rest of the world's beuracracies, corporations included. Anyone can be represented by putting in the work and putting up the cash.

Ultimately corporate garbage rarely leaks into the kernel proper. Most of the filth is off in driver land, which isn't even that bad given it's always going to be a vendor landfill.

That is an extremely Americanized take on that awful member list. Is Intel's history of being anticompetitive better? How about their presence in Israel? Is Meta better? Microsoft?

To a non-American, many (most) of those companies are worse than Huawei. Actually, any company who share user data with the government (as shown by Snowden) is much worse than Huawei.

Implicit bias exposed by trying to remove Huawei from the list of companies that share data with their government, combined with whataboutism trying to distract from the meaning of the comment by focusing on a minor item provided as an example.

That doesn't minimise the impact of open-source software.

I've yet to see an Apple user who doesn't install brew as a first step before doing anything with their computer.

From what I see, people may love Apple's OS, but they can't use it with without open-source tools.

Most Apple users don't even know what brew is, and I'd be willing to bet that most devs using Macs don't install it either.

Anyway, the larger point that gnome can't succeed because it doesn't offer "choice" is nonsense.

I moved away from Apple too for this reason in fact.

There's a whole industry of little apps that let you fix things about MacOS that doesn't really exist on Windows. Rectangle, Karabiner Elements, SteerMouse, SteerMouse, etc.

Gnome copies the worst things about MacOS.

Apple are designed to look cool, not to BE cool.

Because Preview works, KPDF works and Gview behaved weird or in the wrong way most of the time

Apple builds the automatic car by removing the gear shift, Gnome builds it by removing the gas pedal and just having a button called "Go" which makes you go at 10mph

This means that under the hood, using extensions, you can customize that Gnome car. Can an Apple automatic car do that as easily?

So between the Apple automatic and Gnome "pick customizations" I know which one I prefer (and yes Apple does have extensions, settings, etc). Yes, there won't be a perfect solution and sometimes you kinda miss some minor thing but it is minor.

For example, looking at: https://extensions.gnome.org/#page=2 there's Date and Time formatter (you can do that in Apple) and "Sound Input & Output Device Chooser" which you can do by going in settings in Apple - but it doesn't matter most of the time because the out of box experience works almost perfectly

If I'll ever buy a Mac (and I can't imagine why) I'd want to totally change its windows management and make it as close as possible to Gnome 2 and Windows XP, with virtual desktops (Gnome 2 had them.) I would probably disable all gestures except scrolling and zooming.

I'd also shed tears about the lack of physical buttons on the touchpad but that starts to be about the hardware, which is off-topic.

In contrast, KDE also supports extensions but I've never needed any because it's so configurable.

Which, btw, means that you can never overtake anyone while going up, unless your engine is 2x of the power it'd need with gears.

Sure, with a few setbacks (cue 4.0 nightmares) but overall their technological choices (Qt in primis), architecture and quality of contributors won the battle.

Gnome used to be way more polished at the Gnome 2 vs KDE 3 era but kind of lost its way over time.

It's definitely not about unchangeable defaults vs configuration (there's a market for both).

I think in fact the corporate interests already get 99% of everything they want and they simply don't care for a cohesive desktop OS.

They already serve 99% of corporate interests. A "takeover" would sacrifice the veil of what the propagandized "open source community" interprets as corporate egalitarianism.

LOL!

And in this particular case, it reminds me of Red Hat and CentOS actually. Because one project just wants to ensure that people who download <name brand> are actually getting <name brand> and not something else. That concern is just as valid in open source as it is in big enterprise.

As for “solving” the “blob “problem,”” it provides a reasonable architecture for implementing drivers that are both platform- and architecture-independent; an OS can even choose to just use the drivers supplied by the firmware, by providing an equivalent environment.

In other words, it essentially solves the “How should an arbitrary system boot and pass control to an operating system, including how to interact with arbitrary devices?” problem. What more does anyone need?

EDIT: Courtesy of user jbit¹, this is the aforementioned web page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230719185342/https://libreboot...

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36927233

GNU Boot seems to be Libreboot with very minor differences (mainly documentation) + removal of binary blobs.

Check https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/libreboot-devel/2023-0... and https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/libreboot-devel/2023-0... to see the patches.

There is also a Savannah repository but history does seem to have been deleted: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnuboot.git

1. Open source is global, and not everyone is a native speaker of English.

2. Among English speakers, not everyone has the same cultural conventions and nuances. Even within US cities, you can drive 15 minutes, and find very different conventions. And culture in Boston isn't the same as the Bay Area, isn't the same as in Bolivia.

3. Even within the same culture, not everyone picks up on signals in language to the same degree (whether perceiving or sending). And some people who think they're picking up on signals are conflating with biases more than some others do.

I say I have to remind myself, because this still hits me. For example, when I'm searching certain bug databases, trying to solve an annoying problem, and some prolific volunteer commenting on a bug report there speaks in a manner that comes off as brusque or dismissive. Where they're from (across the Atlantic from me), maybe it's interpreted as professional or capable, and is even reassuring.

Someone's definition of aggressive discourse is definitely not everyone's.

I think this is part of what I'm getting at, text conversations are missing eye contact, body language cues etc, and along with the anonymity of the internet, a lot of things can be misinterpeted and disagreements can escalate quickly.

I normally try not to engage in it too much - when the sun is shining and it's a beautiful day I'd rather be out exercising and patting peoples dogs than engaging in Internet drama. That is all.

I miss those times. By the end of the day, everybody would hug and kiss and say goodbye until next Sunday.

Also, our interpretation depends on context, such as in your example, and many other things. It's a bit argumentative to treat a short HN comment as a roadmap of every human interaction and find flaws.

I'm of xUSSR descent, and sometimes when I see a group of chinese colleagues speaking together loudly, it is very weird to me, as soometimes they are so loud that if it was in Russian it would mean that the brawl could start any second. It is hard to judge sometimes.

Even in written communication it is was told to me many times that many Russians, especially those with B1/B2 levels, as well as Jewish people are extremely direct, and it may be perceived as native speakers as rude, although it isn't meant to.

We don't all express ourselves or react in the same ways, despite whatever our HR training videos claim.

When someone "yells at me," I tend to think they're excited and it piques my interest in what they're saying. At the same time, they're excited so I expect them to omit some details and not give me a complete picture - I'm less discerning about the details. Was that one of the responses I'm supposed to feel?

I didn't say we did. I said there is a range of responses we can reasonably expect.

Generally once I'd helped them unpick that they collaborated happily and came up with something good that they both liked, it's just once people are locked in to talking past each other it's often non-trivial to break out of that.

I found this: https://libreboot.at

> Who are we? Denis ‘GNUtoo’ Carikli and Adrien ‘neox’ Bourmault. We created this and maintain it.

> take a stand for fully free software is to change URLs across the web from <libreboot.org> to <libreboot.at>, and to let people know that no other version of Libreboot is reliably free software

You can see that they abandoned the Libreboot name and founded GNU Boot, that Leah is now trying to take over (the name) too.

Anyway, this drama is highly personal and Leah is not a trustworthy person.

According to this [1], the alleged takeover you mention not only didn't involve Adrien or Denis Carikli, it also happened two years before the creation of https://libreboot.at, which seems to be from 2023 [2]

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210331005023/https://libreboot... or https://www.andrewrobbins.info/libreboot.html if you want a third-party

[2] https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/libreboot-devel/2023-0...

Either way, it seems that if there was any problem around the usage of the GNU Boot name, it was solved by adding disclaimers galore: http://notgnuboot.vimuser.org/

To me the disclaimers above show enough good faith. Meanwhile https://libreboot.at continues up. I don't think we should be that harsh and accusatory to someone after they actually comply with the request of changing a page name and adding disclaimers.

This seems so weird to me. Why invest the energy? In the olden days we'd just fork and get to work.

As some of us already said multiple times, this is a completely different story and unrelated to this. Let's maybe lets this misunderstanding die?

Granted, the TLDR at the top would have helped haha, especially if it was a long post.

FWIW today is the first I’ve heard of Leah and I spent some time reading their website (vimuser.org) and they seem to be quite conscientious and thorough in explaining their work and the rationales behind it. This whole thing has kindled some interest in using a free boot loader on my system. Looking forward to trying it out.

Lib reboot.

Always have, but it took LibreOffice becoming mainstream to make the correction mostly unnoticeable.

Then I suspect Leah disagreed with that fork both on technical merits (it's based on old code) and with the stealing of the name, but she agreed with the need for a version without the binaries, so she made that and published it under the name GNUboot, intended for Denis and Adrien to base their work on, and now Denis and Adrien are complaining that she's misusing the GNU name.

Is that roughly a correct summary?

Because if it is, it sounds to me like both sides do have valid points, but handled the disagreement very poorly. Denis and Adrien complaining that Leah stole the GNU name when they just stole the Libreboot name, sounds very hypocritical. The whole thing would be a lot better if both sides stopped the drama and powergames and just worked together to create the best possible boot systems; one with the binaries and one without.

For example, a long email history on any of these people(and even if you don't use, people you email do use gmail), from a central store such as gmail, would provide immense insight into personality traits, etc.

Which means external motivaters could be used as handy leavers to drive dissent.

Little spats like this, erode project trust, and just divert energy.

Anyhow, no idea if this is happening. I guess if you really do want to destroy something, just let Oracle buy it, so maybe I'm off here.

But yeah, this does seem to happen painfully often. The particulars of this specific incident remind me a lot of the FFmpeg vs LibAV split (or the LibAV+Debian vs. FFmpeg+Everyone Else split).

GNU will probably back pedal

It would be bad if GNU stomped out all other philosophies of developing software and products, because it would remove the commercial incentive to innovate. On the other hand, we'd be much worse off without all the work that its philosophy has produced.

I get your frustration, though - GNU will never be what you want it to be, internally, unless you're 100% on board.

But this is the aim of the FSF, they clearly believe that all software should be copyleft.

Some, even many, people has somehow got it into their heads that the FSF is equally opposed to anything which is not copylefted, and this is decidedly not the case.

Not so. In a world were the FSF got their way: Organizations with a need for specialized software would be able to contract programmers to bring that software into existence. It's not as though every other profession in the world would throw up their hands and say they couldn't use computers anymore just because software could no longer be copyrighted.

Cringe. I will only participate in communities with meaningful codes of conduct.

Today's drama is part of larger culture wars going on in the community:

- The pro-RMS vs anti-RMS thing going on since RMS's removal from the FSF in 2019, much amplified by his reinstatement in 2021 (the latter of which lead to most of the FSF staff walking out). Is RMS still fit to lead the FSF? Has the FSF lost its way?

- The thing about whether or not "the FSF's/RMS's RYF and FSDG policies regarding firmware and microcode are misguided and harmful".

libreboot got pulled in to that when in November 2022 it merged osboot, adopting osboot's firmware/microcode policies, which are at odds with the FSF's policies. So then some folks "forked" https://libreboot.org as https://libreboot.at and claim to be the "true" libreboot. I put "forked" in quotes because there wasn't any new libreboot development going on there; it was just a snapshot of the pre-osboot-merge libreboot releases. Then, more recently, the libreboot.at folks decided that to resume development of an FSF-friendly coreboot distribution as "GNU Boot".

So yeah, I guess you can say this drama is Leah's fault in that she has taken a clear stance against the FSF's firmware/microcode polices, but so have a lot of other folks in the community.

it's been going on MUCH longer than that.

No matter what he's done for free software, he's also a super-creep based on some of his comments

So of course it had been going on a while if more than 3000 people were "suddenly" willing to sign the open letter against him.

That list contains the worst careerists in OSS, many of whom have joined any cancel mob that has ever formed. I'd use it as a no-hire list.

Their non budging stance on issues that hardly make sense or are logically inconsistent, meanwhile society is rapidly shifting to a constant mandatory surveillance state.

At this point the FSF is just a Richard Stallman fan club. So kicking him out would scrap their last bit of relevance.

- personal experience as a dramanaut

Did I miss something? Over the past 7 years the Libreboot project has been extremely aggressive towards the FSF. Going so far as to say the GNU project shouldn't exist and throwing insults at individuals in the organization.

The emphasis on the whole, "I did this release for them" honestly doesn't pass the sniff test and kind of feels like they're intentionally trying to create drama. The "why didn't they contact me" has a completely obvious answer based on past interactions.

So here's a better question, why didn't Libreboot contact GNU before trying to publish their own GNU Boot release? Why did they try to impersonate them?

Whatever you may think of Leah publishing an unofficial GNU Boot release for them to rebase off of, she didn't try to impersonate them by buying a confusingly similar domain.

Compare her single reference to an "unofficial GNUBoot release" to this: https://libreboot.at/

GNU Project or FSF has nothing to do with it, the guys of GNU Boot are only associate members of FSF.

Libreboot.at itself seems to be a reaction to binary-blobs, not to this other drama.

[1] https://www.andrewrobbins.info/libreboot.html

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20210331005023/https://libreboot...

Unless there was a third "abandonment" and a "takeover" after that, I don't see how those events are related. Once again, happy to be corrected.

A project cannot enforce FSF-owned trademarks if the FSF "has nothing to do with it."

I suspect you know very well that what you said is false.

That's not a better question at all. They list out their explicit reasoning for their attempted name takeover. I definitely don't agree with it, but I have no reason to believe that they're lying about their own beliefs.

I absolutely do have reason to doubt Leah's words of releasing GNU Boot as being in good faith though. Their history of drama with them is the reason for my doubt.

In terms of practicality, I feel like a better reaction would have been to either trademark their project name or maintain a separate fork of Libreboot that would include the binary blobs. Why resort to trademark infringement?

Libreboot use to be part of the GNU project, but I'm not aware of any collaboration after the fact. I just know the primary author/maintainer of Libreboot had a falling out with the FSF and GNU project. I don't think they ever reconciled (and I'm not sure they will at this point).

As for the cause of their falling out, this happened around 2016 when the FSF let go of a transgender employee. It appears the original statements by the Libreboot maintainer was deleted off of their site, but they are archived[0][1] and the original email sent out declaring themselves no longer part of the GNU project[2]

Just to be clear, I am not sure if an actual reason was given out for why they were fired. The FSF had declined giving an actual reason, and Richard Stallman himself stated "The dismissal of the staff person was not because of her gender. Her gender now is the same as it was when we hired her. It was not an issue then, and it is not an issue now."[3]

Those articles and emails are the only primary sources that I'm aware of. There might be more information somewhere else, but unfortunately I don't really know of anything further.

There was more drama later on. Something about the author leaving the project and then forcibly taking it back a few years later down the line against other contributor's wishes. But I think the reason for that was a bit more nuanced and I didn't keep up with that. I'm not even sure it had anything to do with the FSF or GNU project anyways.

[0] https://archive.is/T8BBA

[1] https://archive.is/q5uod

[2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg0003...

[3] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg0005...

Thanks for sharing!

For context, this is the page the cease and desist was referring to.

Then she abandoned the project and let the contributors take over, after some time she booted them with fake accusations, banned them from their IRC channel and took over the project. The contributors complained that she didn't even have the decency of contacting them, but she was adamant of taking the Libreboot name for her again to sell used Laptops. This was also the moment that she began to add binary blobs to Libreboot.

They founded the GNU Boot project and she, not satisfied, created another "GNU Boot" just to say that their project is "inferior" and now she complains about a "cease and desist" of a person that rightfully don't like her.

They (GNU Boot) don't want her help, and I understand why they don't like her. The fact she is making more drama from it is more proof that she is not trustworthy.

Everyone is still free to fork GNU Boot, even if the maintainers don't "want help". Also Leah seems to be the upstream maintainer. Reusing the name for a fork is of course not the best thing to do, but it was promptly changed when requested.

And publishing a C&D is not really making drama. Transparency is important.

Extra sad since Leah was one of the few high-profile people willing to publicly defend RMS, a position I really respected: https://web.archive.org/web/20210826050949/https://libreboot...

And I can't blame her for not feeling that way any more:

  [lammy@emi] curl -I https://libreboot.org/news/rms.html
  HTTP/2 301 
  date: Sun, 30 Jul 2023 04:04:13 GMT
  location: https://libreboot.org/news/gnuboot.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20230719185342/https://libreboot...

then you might agree that GNU Boot may have a point that the web page is (or was) using the name “GNU Boot” confusingly. Accordingly, they asked it to be changed, albeit somewhat confrontationally and brusquely.

The people involved in Libreboot.at / GNU Boot are Adrien Bourmault and Denis Carikli, and the whole Libreboot.at / GNU Boot forks started in 2023.

They don't seem to be the people that were booted in 2021, which are Andrew Robbins and Sebastian Grzywna – http://andrewrobbins.info/libreboot.html

Unless Leah managed to abandon the project in 2021-2022, give it to Adrien/Denis to maintain and then made another (a third!) coup, I don't see how all of this is related.

Once again, I have no horse on this race and never heard of those people before, but I'm replying to you again because you're the one making those accusations, which I assume are either an honest mistake from you, or you're talking about things that were never published anywhere.

No: She sold librebooted laptops under the brand "gluglug" and later "minifree". This was never "on behalf of Libreboot"; it was always separate.

> didn't send it, then put the blame on her mental issues?

Yes, mostly: in 2020 minifree accumulated a backlog of orders that she wasn't able to fulfill. However, AFAIK, she did eventually ship all those orders, and minifree is in a good place today.

> Then she abandoned the project and let the contributors take over

Sorta: She had removed herself as a Libreboot maintainer after the 2016 drama between her and the FSF. She had already long not been a Libreboot maintainer by the time she encountered trouble in 2020.

> after some time she booted them with fake accusations, banned them from their IRC channel and took over the project. The contributors complained that she didn't even have the decency of contacting them

Yes: She did forcefully take Libreboot back over in 2021. But, in the 5 years of SwiftGeek et al. being the Libreboot maintainers, they never shipped a release. At the the time she took it back over, the last release was more than 5 years old, shipped by Leah before she stepped away in 2016. So IMO her taking it back over was the right thing, even if how she did it was shitty.

> but she was adamant of taking the Libreboot name for her again to sell used Laptops.

No: Again, her controlling the "libreboot" name has nothing to do with her selling laptops under the brand "minifree". She was adamant that libreboot start doing releases again, instead of withering away.

> This was also the moment that she began to add binary blobs to Libreboot.

No: That didn't happen until November 2022 when she merged with osboot.

When she did that, several folks (I believe with no overlap of the folks who were maintainers 2016-2021), forked libreboot.org as libreboot.at and claim to be the "true" libreboot. This libreboot.at is a snapshot of the pre-osboot-merge libreboot, and doesn't have any new releases.

Then, in June 2023, the libreboot.at folks decided to start working toward doing new releases under the "GNU Boot" name. At this time, there has not been a GNU Boot release.

> she, not satisfied, created another "GNU Boot" just to say that their project is "inferior" and now she complains about a "cease and desist" of a person that rightfully don't like her.

No: She published some GNU Boot "releases" that were clearly marked as "unofficial" incorporating work from libreboot that she thought would be useful to the GNU Boot folks. https://web.archive.org/web/20230719185342/https://libreboot... She did not create "another" GNU Boot. She did call GNU Boot "inferior", but not because her unofficial release was better, but because of the FSF's RYF and FSDG policies force it to be inferior; her unofficial GNU Boot releases are also inferior to Libreboot in the same way.

As a reminder, the GNU Boot folks are trying to take the Libreboot name from her.

The fact that http://notgnuboot.vimuser.org already has plenty of disclaimers but http://libreboot.at still presents itself as the "genuinely free version of Libreboot" is not a good look for the people who sent the C&D.

FSDG: Free System Distribution Guidelines

RYF: Respects Your Freedom certification requirements: https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria

FSDG: Free Software Distribution Guidelines: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guideli...

An argument from Leah/Libreboot about why the RYF/FSDG's policies about firmware and microcode are bad: https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html

  As a reminder, the GNU Boot folks are trying to take the Libreboot name from her

Then, Dennis and Adrien come along and decide+announce that because they don't like a change that Leah made to Libreboot, that Leah no longer gets to be the one to use the Libreboot name.

guys guys sorry I was wrong! but I've left the lies up, whoops how clumsy of me

I wish this were higher up. I can see why the situation is very confusing to somebody who doesn't know this.

I'm struggling to see how there's an argument either party are in the right here for trying to squat on each other's names.

So we have Libreboot (pronounce 'LibreBoot'), and we have an unofficial GNU Boot (pronounce 'NewBoot') both by Leah Rowe (from UK, good coder, also a drama magnet). With the unofficial GNU Boot being more up to par with Libreboot, and being 'completely FOSS' whereas the other one made concessions.

Then we have Coreboot (formerly known as LinuxBIOS) on which Libreboot is based, and we have an unofficial Libreboot, and an official GNU Boot. What is the purpose of the unofficial Libreboot and official GNU Boot? They're both lagging behind the other versions by Leah Rowe. I'm all for forks but why do we have these people who seemingly unable to collaborate with each other, and then create all this drama?

I used LinuxBIOS once. On an old ThinkPad T61. I replaced the proprietary BIOS with LinuxBIOS, and my goodness it was fast compared to the slow, proprietary BIOS. But it was also risky to replace the BIOS if I didn't want to physically touch the device, fiddling with soldering and the like. So for too long, I did not dare to.

Which is why Leah offers this service to other people: second hand, physically clean and proprietary firmware stripped devices. Old devices. Which require various microcode fixes but once these are active (and an up-to-date Linux distribution takes care of that) they should be secure.

In the end I brought my ThinkPad T61 to the dump. The battery and backup battery were both dead, the SSD was dying, the case was a bit damaged and some screws were missing, and I couldn't bother to update the slow machine. That I could've sold it or have someone patch it up and resell it didn't tilt in my mind. I was relocating and needed to get rid of a lot of stuff so it is hindsight 20/20 that would've been the best option.

But noting has happened yet other than a “stop it” email. I flagged this because the screenshot shown in the article is not a “cease and desist” letter. Nothing here is interesting.

That's not really "libre", but either libro (book) or librería (bookshop).

You may see libre on parkings [0].

[0] https://www.burguet.es/fotos/cartel_vinilo_retroiluminado.jp...

Hell, even the OpenOffice fork was called LibreOffice.

I love free software, and will never stop, but "Libre" is only great in a vacuum.

Some people believe that the absence of antifeatures is more important than the presence of features. That's... honestly one of GNU's big controversial ideas, for decades now.

Saying this as someone who has replaced and removed WLAN cards in laptops that need blobs, and used FSF-approved distros long-term.

Somewhat related, I think the Apple Silicon MacBooks will end up replacing many people's old ThinkPads someday thanks to the work from the Asahi team. (A bit early right now, especially if you have one newer than an M1.)

That sounds a bit weird to me: reading Asahi blog posts, it sounds like Asahi are doing little hardware drivers, rather a lot of RPCs, because most hardware features are behind some other CPU running proprietary firmware. (Loaded by bootloader stages before Asahi if I followed correctly)

It's not surprising that the inclusion of (smaller) binary blobs in those projects is an issue which elicits strong feelings both ways since it goes to the core of the projects' purposes.

But the amount of Drama in this is over the top

Leah stepped away from Libreboot in 2016, after some drama between her and the FSF. Two Libreboot community members, Andrew and Sebastian, became the Libreboot maintainers.

In 2021, after Andrew and Sebastian managed to go 5 years without doing a release, Leah forcefully took the project back over in order to get releases going again.

Leah also started a "sister project" to Libreboot, Osboot, which had a different (non-FSF-friendly) firmware/microcode policy in order to support more hardware. It is my understanding that on all hardware that can be supported without binary blobs that Osboot still did not include any and was equivalent to Libreboot.

In November 2022, Leah merged Osboot into Libreboot, adopting Osboot's firmware/microcode policy for Libreboot.

In response to this policy change, two other community members, Denis and Adrien, forked libreboot.org as libreboot.at, and claim to be the "genuine" Libreboot. Neither Denis nor Adiren were Libreboot contributors before that. libreboot.at is a snapshot of pre-osboot-merge Libreboot; there are not any new releases there.

In June 2023, Denis and Adrien decided to start work toward doing new releases under the name "GNU Boot". They have not yet done a release of GNU Boot.

In July 2023, Leah posted an "Unofficial GNU Boot 20230717 release" to libreboot.org. Adrien sent Leah the "C&D" about using the "GNU Boot" name. Leah removed the release from libreboot.org, and instead put up https://notgnuboot.vimuser.org/ .

Adrien sending that message is ironic, given that Adrien and Dennis are trying to steal the Libreboot name from Leah.

I still think it is a jerk move. I wish that the GNU/FSF had the names GNU Boot, Libreboot, GNU Libreboot, and the 'Libre-' brand (also the 'Free-' and the 'Open-' brands).

But then the page at https://libreboot.at/ is equally jerk, it basically says that they want to have the name, so they create a fork with the same name. (It doesn't even seem alive, and even the webpage is broken, it isn't even an effort to take over the name, rather just to stir some shit.)

So I would be careful in reading into this. Of course no evidence because by the time it appears here, most threads and comments have been deleted already and the desuarchive-like websites almost never contain all comments. That's how 4chan works after all.

My comment:

Leah has been very helpful when I started to debug my old T440p at the time, both in regards to disassembly, flashing, debugging and pointing me in the right direction.

There are some snarky comments down here which seem to be from chans, and they seem to imply that Leah never shipped her libreboot flashed Thinkpads (implying fraud), which AFAIK didn't happen. There were too many orders at some point for a single person to handle, and she caught up with those later; and communicated that clearly.

Leah, if you are reading this: Don't feed the trolls, they gonna get bored if you ghost them. Treat them like the 5 year olds that they behave like, and don't read too much into this shitstorm. I'm very thankful for your very appreciated work!

How about you do better than what you complain about and add proof? So far the only comment I have seen here that looks like throwing baseless accusations is yours.

> How about you do better than what you complain about and add proof? So far the only comment I have seen here that looks like throwing baseless accusations is yours.

Where does all the sudden hostility towards me come from?

Regarding proof: Just go to desuarchive and search for "tranny"+"libreboot" and you'll find a couple of threads.

https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/66tpiy/proposal_for_...

Also, with “supporters” like her, who needs enemies?

But hey, as an outsider, I enjoy watching the petty mudslinging back and forth, so carry on, folks.

In that sense I think libreboot should rename to something else since they decided now to include blobs, for whatever good reason that was

We need to keep projects that continues to push for fully open hardware