From 7160bb5f0fa02199cedfcb6844bd3cbb8a3ea718 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Leah Rowe Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 01:08:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] remove redundant paragraph, and fix one more typo --- site/policy.md | 7 +------ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/site/policy.md b/site/policy.md index a997e54..50c98f7 100644 --- a/site/policy.md +++ b/site/policy.md @@ -234,11 +234,6 @@ high CPU usage and I/O (RAM usage), without crashing (otherwise, it's very likely to encounter a kernel panic caused by a [Machine Check Exception](faq.html#machine-check-exceptions-on-some-montevina-penryn-cpu-laptops)). -Leah Rowe policy is to include microcode updates, *by default*, because they -do not affect software freedom in practise, since the only other "choice" is -*broken, buggy* microcode. This is not a choice, it is a prison, and a less -comfortable prison is clearly inferior. - Not including these updates will result in an unstable/undefined state. Intel themselves define which bugs affect which CPUs, and they define workarounds, or provide fixes in microcode. Based on this, software such as the Linux kernel @@ -297,7 +292,7 @@ policy of Libreboot, my own project. I am horrified by the technically incorrect monstrosity that I created, so I did osboot to make me feel better. It is far superior to Libreboot, in every way, because it still can (*and does*) support the same hardware, but it lacks dogma. The osboot project takes a more -pragmatic approach to freedom, that is completely in line with my action views. +pragmatic approach to freedom, that is completely in line with my actual views. *Libreboot is inferior*. However, I will say: