Secureboot is not a security feature.

I've warned about Secureboot and UEFI for years. That it was essentially a ploy by Microsoft to have greater control over the OS that's installed on the x86 platform which it effectively controls.

MS left it up to OEMs to decide on whether they allow secureboot to be disabled. But MS also has an undisclosed deal with the OEMs. Part of that deal is exclusivity for MS Windows.

I see...

It seems you want others to construct your pet project Linux distribution thing for you?  Are you going to motivate these "good" people with monetary remuneration for their efforts?  Or do you expect them to work for free ?

As I first suspected - this is vapourware - in fact it hardly qualifies as that...  as that term usually applies to those with the skills but who lack either the time or the will...

"Project management" eh?

Against ideology?

"Praised be Jesus Christ!" is the only content on your website.

I think you should stop now.

There is a reason x86 was often dubbed "wintel".

MS hijacked that market from IBM who admittedly probably got what they deserved and again with OS/2.  Their were casualties along the way along with, most notably, CP/M, and others of course. Everything that has occurred since has been at the behest of Microsoft, including UEFI and Secureboot, often to the rapturous applause of some Linux fans (quoting some developer on the payroll of AMD, Intel, Microsoft or whoever as they gush about meaningless quasi security). If things had worked out differently you might have had two Apples instead of one and no "open" x86 hardware. It's hard to say, but old MS may have been a "necessary evil", whereas new MS are just evil. EEE didn't just stop, it was simply adapted to the times.

The reality is that MS' secret deals with its OEMs continues, alternative OS are still frozen out of new PC sales and closed source firmware is the norm.  The Intel Management Engine may not be the worst thing they will devise...

"If my fears come true, there will be a storm of indignation around the world, very soon! And that will affect Microsoft too. I don't know how many users Windos has, but if only 25% switch to Linux, then you should be well prepared for it."

I'm afraid your predictions might be just a bit off oh great prophet.

Whatever is exposed about certain individuals, no matter how big, the world will still turn and MS will still dominate their x86 PC market. Business is business.

I'm sure that if you look at most browsers and in fact the source code of many well known GUI applications, you'll find similar.

As headstick knows, Theo de Raadt gave a fairly casual "best of a bad lot" endorsement to chromium, as the code quality and security aspects are well ahead of Firefox, but chromium comes with many other problems such as horrible UI and being a google project.  It's partially why there are so many forks.  The problem I find is that none of the forks are any good or worthwhile or come with their own problems - Brave being one example.  Or the fork is from the likes of Microsoft...

Terrible choices, but given all those choices Firefox still come out looking like a better option than many others.  Aping chromium and taking google's money for years has gotten them to where they are now - fielding the only viable contender to a chromium / chromium based mono culture, having lost most "market share" to chromium, but with google in a position to pull the plug at any time... talk about "own the resistance".

That article comes across as to being spurred by a particular agenda, but citations are relevant.  The developers are making some very questionable decisions - and perhaps it's time the browser's fans cast their minds back as to why they stopped using browsers such as chrome or firefox?

The way the forum is administered and how the lead developers behave, may be irrelevant to the actual software itself, but the obnoxious and arrogant posturing and in particular the attitudes on show in the "insect" comment and the posting directed at the individual trying to work on an OpenBSD port, is in fact reflected in the code - in the decisions regarding tor, add ons, blocking user agent override, etc - in general foisting changes on users for a particular reason, while publicly offering another line of reasoning - not so plausible reasoning.  For example the UA override removal and reasons stated for doing so were questionable - and it's likely that the same narcissistic reasoning of "branding" was behind that, as it was with the OpenBSD port situation - in that allowing users to masquerade as firefox his perceived "market share" suffers. It looks like it's - "Our browser, Our way"...  Except in reality it's a fork, with the  overwhelming bulk of that code being from decades of dev work at Mozilla (and Netscape before that).

I still use ftp professionally. I've had to go back to filezillla at work for simple anon ftp etc.

There is nothing wrong with using it. If you download an .iso image and check the md5sum, that is really no different to using SSL/TLS.  Ultimately you should have the choice. They have willfully deprecated it as part of a wider industry led strategy and not because of any concerns over maintaining it.

HTTPS is being de facto standardised to force all traffic via google, faecebook, amazon, ms, cloudflare, et al.

The "invalid misc" is what you need to look into. The other devices may be ok, but is this computer closer to any potential sources of interference?

rtl8168 is your ethernet.

The broadcom devices supported by the b43 driver will not work at all without proprietary firmware extracted from the wl vendor driver tarball. If you installed what was needed  via downloading and installing with dpkg, then you've probably done enough, but it wouldn't hurt to enable contrib and non-free repositories as suggested, and do an upgrade, just in case whatever packages you downloaded were for an older release? Perhaps you can elaborate on why they were installed manually and where they were sourced from?

Or did you in fact instlll wl via some other source?

Clearly.  Did you check the times of postings?  Did you read Ibara's OP in the thread you linked?  He was given less than 24 hours before they sent in some cretinous amateur legal rep, with "cease and desist" threats...

Did you consider that it was a private individual attempting to port the software to OpenBSD and not in any way someone representing the project?  Did you consider that it was someone who was not out for commercial gain, who was only creating a port of the browser on OpenBSD as a service to others?  If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with FOSS and you should immediately switch to Mozilla or google as that's exactly how they operate.  In fact, somehwhat in Mozilla's defense, they were never so obnoxious in their dealings with Debian during the Iceweasel years - and they were obnoxious enough - but unlike this petty project, they may have at least had reason to be  - as the developers of the software.

Nothing "wrong with it" as such, that's the terms of the MPL, as defined by the organisation you seem to hate so much, who incidentally created firefox and developed it on from the codebase as provided by the netscape browser.  Your cult of personality "Moon Child", simply patches older code and adds his own branding and logo and then issues threats - check the licence before you deign to lecture others.  There are few other FOSS projects using such a licence and issuing such threats.

You're wrong.

Errr what... ummmm?

It's obvious to me as to Ibara's intentions.  The "Palemoon people" simply chose to wave their "legal" dicks around...

In terms of their credibility - all doubt has now been removed.  Pompous, self important pricks...

Which reminds me - nice to see you headstick.

I you get kernel source from kernel.org, you will get the firmware regardless.

I wouldn't hold your breath nor stake your hopes on a project which makes such "hyperbolic" statements as:
"Due to the Linux kernel rapidly proceeding down an unstable path..." and talks a lit about GPL3 while planning to base its project on code which is anything but.

So you have an interest in an, at this stage, theoretical project from developers that want use the OpenBSD kernel, GNU userland, remove all firmware and "liberate" the kernel, just so that you can run wine and MS Windows programmes? I see.

The OpenBSD project don't do any work on wine. The wine port has been incomplete / broken / abandoned for years.