Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is completely obtuse. Why isn’t your anger at the Guix or Linux-libre maintainers’ supposed withholding of information (‘censorship’) directed instead at publishers of closed-source, unauditable binary blobs, which constitute a fundamentally greater security risk than any auditable code repository ever could? How does it even make sense for Linux-libre to publish notifications about available binary blobs of any…
You're ignoring the crux if the issue. This isn't about running proprietary microcode or not. All x86 Guix users are running proprietary microcode . Period. This is a fact, whether they know about it or not. It's not optional. Would it be great if they didn't have to? Sure. But that's not the world we live in. This is about withholding information about an update to the proprietary microcode they are already running…
No, you’re ignoring the crux of the issue, which is user freedom. Why are you so insistent that Guix wave the flag for Intel and allow its users’ freedoms to be even more flagrantly violated by shipping updated microcode? Why does the FSF not openly publishing certain kinds of information amount to censorship? - do you think that, if they were to remove certain blobs from the kernel but leave in these nebulous notifications that microcode updates are available, it wouldn’t be censorship?
Talk about a bad user experience by the way - what you suggest is for the maintainers of Linux-libre to say ‘oh, by the way, there are critical updates to microcode running on your processor, but we’re not going to give them to you.’ That’s antisocial nonsense. Should they tell users about updates to all the other drivers in the kernel which they don’t ship either? Give me a break.
I am currently, at this very moment, running updated Intel microcode on my Guix machine. Every Guix user who has used the distro for more then 5 minutes knows that a) you can track any channel you like containing packaged software, and b) there is a popular channel which contains some useful non-free software. They know this because it takes about 5 minutes to use a search engine for, say, ‘How do I get Nvidia drivers on my Guix System’, which will lead you to nonguix. What exactly is your problem? Do you think Guix users need to be babied?
> Auditability doesn't mean things get audited or all bugs fixed.
Correct! But it means that they can.
Why won’t you respond to the fact that Guix users simply don’t feel hurt by this? You have taken it upon yourself to speak on behalf of a community which is perfectly happy with the existing arrangement - that the default kernel is built on Linux-libre, and they are free to use any other compatible kernel they like, including the upstream.
If you don’t like Linux-libre, don’t use it. If you don’t like Guix, don’t use it. Your pearl-clutching about these projects’ violation of their users’ rights is unwarranted, unwanted, obtuse, and very annoying. If I didn’t know better, I’d think you had it out for FSF.
I’ll leave that as my final word on this because this conversation is fruitless and pointless. You are moralising on the behalf of a community that you are not a member of and that doesn’t care for much of what you have to say for them.