@lioh@fosstodon.org
You misunderstood. I was not complaining about the price; @burek@linuxrocks.online was.
My point is that ppl cannot expect ethical products to compete with unethical ones on price alone. This is b/c unethical makers usually have a cost advantage due to their unscrupulous ways.
I'm quite fine with paying double if it avoids feeding a company that should be boycotted.
@lioh@fosstodon.org
I must say though, when I look at the specs there's brief mention of preinstalled #linux, but no statement on whether it is 100% #freesoftware.
Ppl in the market for ethical hardware generally expect to avoid #nonfreesoftware. Part of being ethical is also being transparent. So if the laptop ships with any binary blobs (incl. the BIOS) then you should warn users exactly what is non-free.
@lioh@fosstodon.org
There is mention of microsoft github to obtain the docs & CAD files. That's ethically dubious b/c:
1. Github just renewed a $200k contract with #ICE (so buyers are feeding #xenophobia-based policy)
2. Microsoft finances AnyVision, who uses #facialrecognition as a weapon against the ppl of #Palestine.
So ethical supply chains #boycott #Microsoft #Github.
@lioh@fosstodon.org
Ubuntu is an /okay/ choice, but it's not ideal because #Ubuntu has PPAs and (AFAIK) has no rules to thwart #nonfreesoftware.
I suggest making #Debian the factory OS. Debian has a #freesoftware mandate & a higher quality standard. Users know that Ubuntu can be installed on anything that can handle debian, but the reverse is not true.