New changes in Libreboot
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
Libreboot is going to have some changes, my question is, with this new update Libreboot machines will continue to be totally free or not? Also, the new laptops that are going to be supported are going to be fully free (ThinkPad X230 and T440p)?
Here is the info:
https://libreboot.org/news/merge.html
It is, at present, impossible to make newer Intel & AMD machines be as free as the older libreboot machines. This used to be included in the libreboot FAQ; archive at
https://web.archive.org/web/20220619223000/https://libreboot.org/faq.html#intel
This seems to be changed in the current FAQ now because those machines are no longer "unsupported." The only way to make such a change from unsupported status to supported status, at present, is with the addition of binary blobs which in my view is a step backward for software freedom. Binary blobs can also be applied to the older libreboot hardware too (CPU microcode updates, and etc.)
Let's all have a moment of silence for the loss of the freedom-oriented libreboot.
It is disappointing that they have started allowing blobs.
https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html
The policy document says that they will used the libre versions whenever possible.
But it also says
>An exception is made for CPU microcode updates: they are permitted, and in fact required as per libreboot policy.
It says that blobs are fully allowed if they are cpu microcode updates, I assume that this means that the later versions of libreboot will have cpu microcode blobs in them (even for the old laptops that were previously ryf compliant)
"It says that blobs are fully allowed if they are cpu microcode updates, I assume that this means that the later versions of libreboot will have cpu microcode blobs in them (even for the old laptops that were previously ryf compliant)"
That is my assumption as well.
I am a translator!
With Libreboot 20220710 on X200 and Trisquel 10, I am sometimes having problems:
- from start, the boot remains stuck with the deer picture and "loading trisquel" on the right. I remember having left it here and that I finally saw the screen for the cryptsetup password, entered it, then it took ages before getting a login screen
- when rebooting, there is immediately a lot of error messages saying disks are not found, any tentative to boot without power off results in the same, after power off the problem does not repeat (the problem *never* happens at first boot)
I reported this on #libreboot on IRC, I was advised to make a but report for libreboot and for trisquel, and to build libreboot from latest source.
However, I remember reading that previously, libreboot had undone changes in coreboot that were causing issues with the non-modified microcode. So I guess that this will load the microcode updates.
Therefore, I am not sure what to do on my X200 now. I am considering re-flashing the 2016 version which did not show such issues.
My only real disappointment is that the main difference between Libreboot and Coreboot was the fact that if you wanted to run near blobless in the BIOS you could and if you wanted newer hardware support you could use a Coreboot system, now there is no difference from a blob standpoint.
That being said I am happy to see more ARM support.I will also take this new Libreboot over a fully closed BIOS.
Yes, I kinda don't see the point of having a separate project from coreboot in this case, other than it makes pre-compiled binaries for easy installation. But that's something the coreboot people could also do, if they wanted.
Oh, I was about to install the new version and I've just read this...
My T400 with T9900 CPU and 8GB of RAM is still powerful enough but, in the future?
What alternatives do we have?
This is so gloomy...
I dare to wish to try to cheer you up: there are other options, and they keep coming. Someone recently mentioned that both PINE64 and MNT had made their debut in the fsf giving guide this year, in the "Promising Communities & Companies" section. This only confirms that the most viable path is to use hardware that has been designed to run with free software. This does not sound like gloomy news to me, more like a prediction that proved correct:
"Some day, free-design digital hardware may be the only platform that permits running a free system at all. Let us aim to have the necessary free digital designs before then, and hope that we have the means to fabricate them cheaply enough for all users." -- Richard Stallman
Well, the brands you mentioned are indeed in the "Promising Communities & Companies" section, but this actually means they are not yet as free as what we hope the Libreboot firmware to be. At least I doubt if there is any LTE modem that works in the free world, for instance. Of course it is nice that these companies are trying to make their laptops and smartphones as free as possible, but in my opinion they are no "alternatives" to Libreboot if we are to be "purists". I'm rather pleased that Libreboot keeps improving to become a competitive alternative to proprietary firmwares.
Those old x86 Thinkpad and AMD boards always have been and still are an temporary solution until someone makes something better™.
Since you were looking for an alternative, Power 9 machines from RaptorCS are currently what works best w/o blobs if you have a budget.
Otherwise you need to be willing to make compromises, the T400 is no exception.
> Power 9 machines
Do you know why ibm has not made a version of
the power9 cpu which would be suitable
in a notebook? For instance a throttled down
power9 cpu version?
I think at one point I contacted ibm by
email on the matter. And got no
answer.
I think we can conclude that IBM's not interested in the PC hardware business. They got out of the last of it when they sold the ThinkPad line to Lenovo 18 years ago and have shown no interest in returning.
In my personal opinion the change in Libreboot is not really anything we should be disappointed with. I suggest reading this section (or maybe the whole page) thoroughly:
https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html#problems-with-fsdg
The fact in this section is quite surprising (as well as disappointing) to me, but it unfortunately is true. To convince yourself, take a look at the simple example of Wi-Fi cards, e.g. this product endorsed by FSF:
https://shop.libiquity.com/product/wifri-nd2h
The product description says "The firmware is part of the hardware, stored within the chipset and modifiable by no one, including the developer."
Seriously? Let me go bold, all the "free" Atheros Wi-Fi chipsets except
- AR9271 (usually small USB-type adapters, only 2.4GHz)
- AR9280 (mini PCIe type, both 2.4 and 5GHz)
- AR9287 (mini PCIe type, only 2.4GHz)
have NONFREE firmwares deeply hidden inside them. If anything else (just like the product above) is endorsed by the FSF, it's either a "mistake" or a complete ignorance.
If you are using any Wi-Fi card other than the three mentioned above, it is probably running a nonfree firmware even if it works with Trisquel or any other FSF-endorsed distro - the only difference is whether the nonfree firmware is "hidden" somewhere deep inside the hardware that you believe is "free" or in your /lib/firmware directory (which typically happens when you enable the nonfree repo on Debian).
So, in the same sense, my point is that allowing microcode update neither increases nor harms your freedom, as long as you are using any modern CPU from Intel or AMD. You are already not as free as you hope or believe. Even the Core 2 series which the old Libreboot have supported have nonfree microcode "baked" on their ROM which are usually buggy and vulnerable. For example, try
$ sudo spectre-meltdown-checker --explain
and you should see "a lot" of warnings. This might not be a serious threat for a single-user laptop, but suppose you are maintaining a multi-user machine or a server. I don't see any point of sticking to a buggier and more vulnerable nonfree microcode and believing it is totally free. I do occasionally update the proprietary Lenovo firmware on my laptop, or mine would also be vulnerable to the flaws that were found already 5 years ago, as the mitigation is (of course) not provided by Trisquel.
I'm rather happy that the Libreboot developers are working really hard to keep the project going. I hope mine gets supported as well someday.
I am a translator!
[from the page you linked] Excluding firmware blobs in the linux kernel is bad. Proprietary firmware is also bad. Including them is a wiser choice, if strong education is also provided about why they are bad (less freedom). If you expose them to the user, and tell them about it, there is greater incentive (by simple reminder of their existence) to reverse engineer and replace them.
Who is doing the "strong education"? The FSF, not Debian. With Debian, people are encouraged to use the non-free firmware and consider reverse engineering as a waste of time, and the whole reasoning here is flawed. Perhaps Debian users will even eventually think it is no problem to use any non-free software that is included in Debian, not only firmware.
> I don't see any point of sticking to a buggier and more vulnerable nonfree microcode and believing it is totally free.
How do you know the microcode update is not introducing an undesirable feature making it actually even more vulnerable? Any non-free update of it could actually make it worse while spectre and meltdown are not an issue for a single user machine running only free software.
I am a lot more concerned by what is explained at https://libreboot.org/faq.html#hddssd-firmware This page is very good and it is highly unfortunate that this is now polluted by flawed reasonings on microcode and on proprietary firmware updates.
This seems to be repeating things based on the notion that anything that does anything must have a software in it somewhere. In the cases of the cards mentioned they're all hardware circuits. The work's done on the host, not the device. Those cards don't even contain a processor to be *able* to run a firmware in the first place, regardless of whether "burned in" or uploaded from the kernel. This pokes holes in the arguments I've seen made that *every* device has a firmware and, if the kernel isn't uploading it, then the device is running its own copy somehow "burned" in to the device. There's no processor there for those devices to be able to execute a firmware.
It seems an interesting worldview. That there's software everywhere; nothing can ever be hardware circuits. Like this telephone:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AT%26T_push_button_telephone_western_electric_model_2500_dmg_black.jpg
Where's the software in this? :)
Or these old computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC#/media/File:ENIAC_Penn1.jpg etc. There's even a video of someone taking one of those phones apart:
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=RWbONnfYyzU
There's no software in there. :)
It's not equivalent to compare these to the microcode running on the host CPU. They are not the same.
I am a translator!
In the cases of the cards mentioned they're all hardware circuits.
The post was saying that cards *other than the ones mentioned* have firmware baked in.
Is that wrong? What about AR9285 for instance?
In general, I would appreciate some education on how to see, for a given wifi card, whether the kernel runs everything (no processor in the card) or whether another processor is running something, and whether the kernel or something else is updating the firmware in case the card has a processor.
An interesting comparison can be done with regard to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_wireless_drivers which is where you'll find the comment about the lack of a CPU for ath5k and ath9k. Within the context of the kernel it's possible to check for the request_firmware calls. You will find those in drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k but those are in there for the ath9K_htc firmware, which are USB devices, and for which we have a free firmware to use: https://github.com/qca/open-ath9k-htc-firmware
> The post was saying that cards *other than the ones mentioned* have firmware baked in.
That was simply untrue. The correct summary is: "Atheros ath5k/ath9k doesn't require firmware. ath9k-htc requires firmware but there is free/libre firmware. Anything else require non-free firmware, although most of them do have free/libre drivers." Courtesy of nadebula.1984.
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/broadcom-wifi-trisquel-etiona#comment-159365
>"Courtesy of nadebula.1984."
The problem with the forum these days is the alarming lack of principled communists. We should have a required minimum number, and a certain number should be required to be Maoists.
Agreed. We also need less dissenting voices. Dissent should be limited to one or two posts per thread, once a month, in leap years. Sentences like "this is simply untrue" should be forbidden.
>"Agreed. We also need less dissenting voices."
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
> The post was saying that cards *other than the ones mentioned* have firmware baked in.
You're right, I meant *other than the ones mentioned*.
> What about AR9285 for instance?
According to this page:
https://wikidevi.wi-cat.ru/Atheros#AR9200.2FAR9500_series
AR9285 seems to correspond to AR5B95 (click the link 'HB95/XB95'), which is exactly the one in the page I mentioned before:
https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html#problems-with-fsdg
But I get jxself's and prospero's point too. So I'm a bit confused, is the example demonstrated on the Libreboot website wrong?
I already knew about the Wikipedia page prospero mentioned, but I thought the information on the page might be incorrect when I first wrote on this thread.
By the way, Intel processors do have microcode baked on a ROM:
https://web.archive.org/web/20091221182054/https://www.ele.uva.es/~jesman/BigSeti/ftp/Cajon_Desastre/MPR/111204.pdf
(See the section 'Patches Stored in BIOS', I found this article from the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Microcode)
The article was from around the time of the P6 architecture, so I assume the same applies to the 'FSF endorsed' Core 2 processors too.
So my point is that the original microcode is not something we can fully trust either, in the same way that you cannot trust the nonfree microcode update included in BIOS or the Linux kernel. It is completely reasonable that you refuse such nonfree microcode update, but what the Libreboot developers are saying is that the original microcode is not free either (and so is my personal opinion) and people would not be aware of this unless this issue is clearly addressed.
ARM has their micro-instructions baked into the instruction decoder instead. See https://developer.arm.com/documentation/uan0015/b/ which talks about, even though there isn't a ROM to store each micro-instruction, individual instructions are still decoded into smaller micro-operations (μops) nevertheless. That's very much like how a microcoded processor works too. We can imagine Intel has a "source" for what goes into the ROM. We can also think of the ARM HDL as being the "source" in the ARM world and that instead of putting each micro-operation in a ROM, they just go into the instruction decoder instead, which can be altered by the manufacturer as desired to alter how the instructions get decoded into micro-operations (μops) and in doing so, alter the CPU as they desire to fix bugs or whatever - Just like Intel can. I'll ask and answer: Why does putting the micro-operations (μops) into a ROM vs an instruction decoder make things any different? Both have "source" that can be edited by the manufacturer to change as desired but, for the end user, they're both just as unchangeable. At least, not without building a new CPU - there's no real difference there. In order to be logically consistent it shouldn't matter where the micro-instructions get baked in. Micro-instructions exist in both (see PDF) and to be consistent they're either both acceptable or neither are.
I am a translator!
I feel bad for how these shops are absolutely price gouging people $500 dollars or more for very old hardware. Freedom should be accessible to all.
Sure, not only freedom, a decent living as well, but I don't expect this to happen in a private profit driven society.
For sure. We can't expect people that are doing this to work for free or at (or just above) the poverty level for their part of the world. Every business will have fixed costs to remain operational and there isn't exactly a lot of volume in these businesses of 100% free software to break that up over. The notion of other hardware being cheaper seems to be based on comparing it against companies doing mass production which lets the per-unit price be smaller or in other cases where it's not being used to support someone's salary, like someone on eBay that's doing it to clear out their attic/basement. If someone else thinks they can do this job at a lower price point they're welcome to make the attempt and show everyone else how it's done. :)
Do you mean it is either the socialist revolution or the end of software freedom?
I am a translator!
Sorry for the off topic but since we were talking about prices, I find the decent living for all somehow more critical than software freedom for all, although I support both. With respect to your comment, I am afraid it could be socialist revolution or massive destruction and death.
If I am reading this correctly, the MNT Reform can now be pre-ordered in the EU with the LS1028A open hardware CPU module that was, until recently, still work in progress: https://shop.mntre.com/products/mnt-reform. Highly active project there. What would still be missing?
This may not be the revolution™ but still sounds like a pretty good reform.
See also: https://mntre.com/media/reform_md/2022-12-24-december-update.html.
"What would still be missing?"
Software freedom is still missing. From the files that exist in the repository it's possible to see that their work was done using proprietary software (Altium Designer on Windows.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altium_Designer?useskin=vector
And so one will need proprietary software to work with the files.
Note their "We would like to convert the design to the open source EDA suite KiCAD..." Why not start with that rather than going full-proprietary from the start? This does not seem to bode well in terms of their freedom priorities.
My perception seems to be that their priorities are: Come up with something first, add freedom second; maybe later. Especially given what happened with switching boards around to one that had that RAM initialization blob.
In my view proprietary software results in an automatic disqualification.
What is MNT doing in the "Promising Communities & Companies" section of the fsf giving guide then?
"MNT's Reform laptop is promising from a free software perspective. If the nonfree RAM training were to be replaced by the community, we have reason to believe it would be fully compatible with your freedom." -- https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v13
They seem to be taking a fair view, based on whether the user is missing any software freedom and not on imputed motives. MNT has come up with a blobless module. They are still selling the blobbed module, which would be my main reservation. Ideally, a reseller with experience in the RYF process should take up from there.
Based on my understanding of the situation, it seems that the FSF's statement pertains specifically to the i.MX8M. From what I know, it appears that the FSF is suggesting that the MNT Reform would not meet the RYF criteria if used with the i.MX8M in its current state. However, as far as I'm aware, the FSF has not made any comments on the "Open Hardware CPU Module" in question.
I do have some concerns regarding the "open hardware" option's ability to meet the RYF criteria. One issue that stands out is related to the proprietary DisplayPort firmware. My take is that the "open hardware"'s use of the proprietary DisplayPort firmware would prevent it from meeting the RYF criteria so simply swapping out the i.MX8M for that doesn't appear to be a panacea because the proprietary firmware moves from RAM (on i.MX8M) to DisplayPort instead. Please note that the views I express in relation to the use of proprietary software as part of developing an "open hardware" design and the DisplayPort firmware are my own, and do not necessarily represent the official position of the FSF.
But: It's worth considering the potential impact of requiring proprietary software (Altium Designer on Windows) for modifying or changing the design, especially if someone wanted to replace the integrated eDP controller with a different component, such as a "simple 2D graphics chip" mentioned on https://mntre.com/media/reform_md/2022-07-25-ls1028a-status-update.html in order to find a way to avoid the proprietary DisplayPort firmware.
Note their "We would like to convert the design to the open source EDA suite KiCAD..."
https://shop.mntre.com/products/mnt-reform specifies:
KiCAD sources for motherboard, keyboard, trackball, trackpad, STEP/STL/FreeCAD files for case parts, C sources for all firmware (input devices and system controller), build scripts for boot & system image
Is it a lie or was the design converted to KiCAD and the we-would-like note left by mistake?
In my humble opinion, that laptop is an excellent piece of news for the free *software* movement even if the *design* is not entirely free.
See also: https://source.mnt.re/reform/mnt-reform-layerscape-ls1028a-som/-/blob/main/README.md
"The module was designed by RBZ Embedded Logics."
"The design is made in Altium. The free and open source EDA suite KiCAD version 6 can import these files for inspection and editing."
I apologize for any confusion that may have arisen. The KiCAD files available pertain to things like the keyboard, trackball, and trackpad, as they say, but aren't for the "Open Hardware CPU Module" that connects to the MNT Reform's motherboard. For that, the .schdoc files in the git repo are for the proprietary Altium Designer software on Windows.
> In my humble opinion, that laptop is an excellent piece of news for the free *software* movement
Except for the nonfree firmware for the embedded DisplayPort controller. In any event, hopefully all of this all helps to answer prospero's question of "What would still be missing?"
Yes, it is clearer now, thank you.
Ideally, someone should talk to RBZ and help them migrate to KiCAD. For the time being, I guess this is what MNT is referring to:
I am a member!
I understand that this is something to wait for the future and I will have my eyes on it as a project.
But 3000++ euros in advance for a laptop that is going to ship in 6-9 months is not something that I can not promote to other people. We need a laptop no more than 400-500 euros, maybe less, to speak about some degree of freedom. At least in my country (Greece), that wages are usually around 800-1000 euros and in younger adults no more than 650 euro, speaking to working class people or students about tech freedom in this price is outrageous.
I am struggling to find x200 to (old)libreboot for customers and people in my community that need libre computer. I do not now how long this is sustainable.
Right now the only possible alternatives I have in my research to do list are (in random order):
1) pine64pro https://pine64eu.com/product/14-inch-pinebook-pro-linux-laptop-ansi-us-keyboard/
2) Olimex DIY laptop https://www.olimex.com/Products/DIY-Laptop/
3) x230 with coreboot
I would love to hear your thoughts about all of these and maybe some other suggestions that are affordable for us average Joe's.
As the machines get harder to find we seem to be in a bit of a pickle as there don't seem to be good replacements.
The WiFi on the Pinebook Pro and Olimex laptops needs nonfree junk. The bluetooth may too.
The x230 has the Intel ME stuff; even if "neutered" some bits remain.
I am a member!
> The WiFi on the Pinebook Pro and Olimex laptops needs nonfree junk. The bluetooth may too.
Yeah, removing wifi/bluetooth is one of the things I am planning to research before promoting them.
> The x230 has the Intel ME stuff; even if "neutered" some bits remain.
This is why I keep searching (and so far finding) x200. But when in the (unfortunately not so far away) future this will not be an alternative, a solution must be provided.
Is the laptop form factor essential? Others can be used instead like the Gigabyte GA-G41M-ES2L, Asus KCMA-D8 and KGPE-D16 and these can still be found easily, in my experience.
"Is the laptop form factor essential? Others can be used instead like the Gigabyte GA-G41M-ES2L, Asus KCMA-D8 and KGPE-D16 and these can still be found easily, in my experience."
Although they've already shot down the form factor I think aside from form factor those options may be high on the cost side as i've seen the budget of 400-500 Euros floated around earlier. I don't know about the others but the D16 board goes from 1100 Euros at Technothical and 500 Euros at Vikings not to mention they'd still need to build a system around it.
I am a translator!
From Vikings, that is almost 600 euros with VAT for the board and 2 000 euros with VAT for a complete system. I still have not received what I ordered or any email from Technoethical nearly 1.5 year after I paid for my order, so I won't consider them.
Those are the costs after markup from the companies. If one's okay with doing the install themselves (which is not difficult) it's possible to find the Gigabyte GA-G41M-ES2 for around US$25 and the Asus KGPE-D16 about $150 with the Asus KCMA-D8 in between those prices.
The Gigabyte GA-G41M-ES2 can be flashed using software; no external programmer required. The Asus needs an external programmer but only for the first flash. Further, someone on eBay sells libreboot chips for the Asus boards so one can simply remove the existing chip and put the new one in. The chip sits in a socket to be removed. much like https://live.staticflickr.com/3617/3417729666_9d428150b3_b.jpg
I am a translator!
> it's possible to find the Gigabyte GA-G41M-ES2 for around US$25 and the Asus KGPE-D16 about $150 with the Asus KCMA-D8 in between those prices.
On ebay in France, I find a few GA-G41M-ES2L from Europe, no GA-G41M-ES2. Is that the same? (prices rather around 40-50 EUR). For Asus KCMA-D8, only from China, price is at least 120-130 EUR. I can see a number of Asus KGPE-D16 from Europe but the cheapest is about 260 EUR + shipping.
Anyway, for someone like me who never tried building a computer and knows no one who has such experience, this looks not very practical.
It think it's possible to (slightly over-)simplify things: If you want progress in libre-friendly hardware to happen, and have the budget, do not use reverse-engineered refurbished hardware. Get some of the new libre-friendly stuff, support the developers and small companies behind it who take huge financial risks instead. Based on what is purchased today, interest in future iterations of the hardware is also measured, which in turn leads to further advances and so on.
Real sustainable progress usually happens where it's much more expensive due to the economy of scale. But: Modern hardware also has a much longer lifespan than in past decades (for example, I'm still using the relatively expensive POWER9 system I bought in 2018, or a less good example, that T440p from 2014).
If you are not willing to spend top dollar or spend your time to develop something yourself, or both, you still have very good options in the pre-2014 space. That is, if you're either willing to get that surprise package a.k.a. "worn-out KGPE-D16 from China" and build a system yourself or make use of our services where you pay a bit extra to be on the safe side.
"As the machines get harder to find we seem to be in a bit of a pickle as there don't seem to be good replacements.
The WiFi on the Pinebook Pro and Olimex laptops needs nonfree junk. The bluetooth may too.
The x230 has the Intel ME stuff; even if "neutered" some bits remain."
I think the wifi on the Pinebook Pro may have been solved.
https://trisquel.info/files/pinebook.jpeg
If you look in the bottom right corner the wifi appears to be working with the Pinebook pro on Trisquel 10. Maybe i'm wrong.
It worked because quidam was using the armbian kernel for testing purposes: https://trisquel.info/en/forum/teaser-trisquel-10-running-arm-laptop-pinebook-pro.
That said, I believe that apart from a USB dongle, one can also plug an M2 atheros card to an adapter and scrap the nonfree integrated NIC:
https://forum.pine64.org/archive/index.php?thread-9727-1.html
https://hackaday.com/2020/04/27/adapter-brings-m-2-wifi-cards-to-the-pinebook-pro
If that hack indeed works, I believe the atheros card should be either AR9462 (QCNFA222) or AR9565 (QCNFA335).
What a bummer. For a moment, I thought you were going to order one for me so I could test it and start mass production in my basement.
We are clearly running out of material resources anyway, so computers are probably going to have to be shared again at some point in the not so distant future. The good news is that individual cost is going to be divided in proportion. Based on these figures, that would currently mean about two to three contributors for one laptop. This is probably far from ideal, but since we are into comparisons, I know many families who are in such a situation with much older nonfree hardware. Not everyone is working 24/7 on a laptop.
Clearly, our predominantly individualistic societies will need to change for that to happen, but there are probably not many other paths. If we are able to share source code, we should also be able to share hardware. Not so long ago, most people would visit "cybercafés", libraries and various public spaces to to their computing. Or their neighbor, or their local user group.
Making repair easier is also going to be a crucial factor for sustainability, and this is also what all these projects are about. We cannot increase the number of available X200, nor repair them forever, but we can try to support promising avenues to make software freedom sustainable without them. That said, it would be good to see more desktop options. Could someone please scrap that blobbed eDP and build a desktop around the remainder?
> 3000++ euros
How are you getting this figure? The fully charged option shows at €2,464 (VAT incl.) while the base version with a 1TB NVMe SSD storage comes at €1,878 (VAT incl.).
Not sure about shipping costs, and this is still two to three times the monthly income you mentioned, but you would need to order two units to get above €3,000.