Hello and welcome to the forums.

To answer your direct questions:

1. We switch to BSD or better HyperbolaBSD as a complete different hybrid, new BSD-descendant operating-system because of independence. A distribution-model is failing more and more the approach of software. Especially from the perspective complexity. Taking the example: If we would need to add more and more dependencies with every new release of a version for a package we would have over time again a growing size and list of dependencies and resulting packages in our repositories. Packages someone would need to take care of, fix and update further, change configurations and test all together. We are not in search to add even more packages and also then oversize this project. The idea behind Hyperbola was and is always to create a fully free system and being independent from corporate influence. The opposite would be to rely on more weak free and just permissive licenses companies logically select because those have no demands to share modifications and additions. The best examples are here Sony and Netflix: Both using clearly FreeBSD but neither shared their extensive modifiations towards the graphics-stack nor  the network-stack. Depending on the BSD-license and variations it is even easier for companies to do excessive misusage instead of less.

2. Interesting statement with many fitting conclusions. But it leaves out that free software is clearly in need for something more than just statements and a vision forward without "always online connections".

3. Sorry, here it is not possible to relate as the majority of that article is just created in usage of machine-learning. So it leaves not really an option to recognize a clear perspective from the author. In general: The newer the hardware, the lesser the options possible to make something different. That refers to most platforms, not only x86.

Hey, sure I answer the points:

1. We have chosen BSD as base and future out of two major reasonings: First we see GNU/Linux (GNU/Linux-libre) and Linux in general going the wrong ways from our perspective. Stable API and ABI references and a smaller codebase without current hyped languages likewise Rust is for us the way forward instead to add even more complexity just alone on the level of kernel, drivers and kernel-modules. Second we want to provide one operating-system from one source as out of the first named point we see the unstable way Linux and system-projects in the majority have chosen (please read here more: https://www.hyperbola.info/news/announc … roadmap/). Per default BSDs have a far more permissive model, which in itself leaves more options for companies not explicite to share their enhancements and additions under the current situation.

2. You have made a good point there: Yes, the current situation within our global society and economy leaves not so many options for any kind of altruistic approach and projects doing such are foremost laughed at. That sounds bitter, but I just recall what happened around and with Hyperbola as we tried to explain and clear our points and have never done any kind attack just only offering critical perspectives. As for the moment: The way the global network (internet) is organized I would clearly recommend more to orient on offline based applications. See for individuals hosting services like "immich" may sound "cool and independent" but self-hosting is besides doing that "at home" (local) not so much more. It is always a nice tale that "we" as society can be independent from companies. But while this tale seems nice, the reality is different with NodeJS, Rust and others being used on-going, but not independent from companies. So real independent development looks quite different. This does not mean that FUTO has not a point and sure money is needed for the development of free software also. From our perspective it is more interesting to underline the community-efforts: When people see the software they use as not only something "they get for free" but something like a tool developed with engagement, they may also value it more. And then they may also see points a bit more criticial, while essential libraries, languages used, protocols and formats are just hard signed with trademarks, patents and copyrights. So many of them only pretend to be free while in fact only allow distribution and some modification until the righs-holder disallow this.

3. For the moment I have no further suggestions as aside ARM-based systems are also not allowing too much more, using closed and signed bootloaders and more. And it is surely possible that ARM on-going will be also reviewed and possible more security-chips and frameworks added as Google / Alphabet alone are redoing Android, closing it up: https://f-droid.org/en/2025/09/29/googl … ecree.html
RISC-V as platform may look interesting, but as for now it is far not in the state it could fulfill a replacement fully for user-systems.

In general to the last point: More architectures may look interesting, but I fear we do not have the time to evaluate more as our ecological foot-print is here coming with. It would clearly produce more devices, more hardware while we have our current and should clearly care for it now as long as even possible.