Eg I intentionally got an old ath9k PCI-E wifi card for my Debian 11 router because it works without proprietary firmware, unlike newer ath10k etc cards.
>Actually working Linux on real hardware is far more important than purity IMO.
I agree, but I also think this depends heavily on who you ask. Stallman for example would rather have poorer functionality than compromise his personal (extremist) ethical principles.
There are a lot of folks who use laptops without wifi because the blobs are non free, so they're using ancient ThinkPads plugged into Ethernet.
> We can envision a future in which our personal fabricators can make chips, and our robots can assemble and solder them together with transformers, switches, keys, displays, fans and so on. In that future we will all make our own computers (and fabricators and robots), and we will all be able to take advantage of modified designs made by those who know hardware. The arguments for rejecting nonfree software will then apply to nonfree hardware designs too.
> That future is years away, at least. In the meantime, there is no need to reject hardware with nonfree designs on principle.
Not a single thing I've ever read about him has indicated this to be even remotely true. We're talking about the guy who used a Lemote Loongson-based laptop in text mode for years and isn't capable of uploading HTML to his own website (he has to rely on volunteers to do this for him, per his own website).
Please note that in the paragraphs that you quoted Stallman is talking about hardware, not firmware. He tolerates firmware blobs only if they are loaded once to the device and never changed (yes, I know it's more complex than this, read the whole essay for more precise information).
I think this would be a better summary: it's okay for hardware to have code that's baked in at manufacture time and can never be changed thereafter. It's not okay if, after you buy hardware, the manufacturer can modify the code but you can't.
