On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:50:59PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:57:11PM +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > > > I vote for: > > 1- putting the non-free firmware on all our images, > > 2- let the installer check whether they are needed, > > 3- if yes, let the user decide: > > I agree with this. While I also believe non-free firmware should not be > encouraged, our current behaviour of making non-free installers > available but difficult to find is just annoying users.
What about offering them side to side? It looks like a non-negligible part of posters in this thread want the purely free version -- and, indeed they represent the Social Contract and the original purpose of Debian and Free Software in general. I'd also put a _succint_ description of what's wrong with them. Written in a way that avoids philosophical distinctions which are opaque to those who don't already know about the matter -- but emotional imprecise words are okay. > If the user's system works fine without the non-free firmware, was any > harm done by having it part of the installer? Especially if nothing of > it was installed? To a fully rational person who wants a purely free system -- no harm, as the increased download size is such a small portion that shaving it is not worth the extra user confusion. But, offering only a non-free version would be a big step in a direction many of us do not want. And, there's hope that in ten years x86 might lose its dominance, in which case we'd rue falling into this slippery slope. Thus: I'd say we should prominently offer two downloads, one with a paragraph of insults. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 14:13 < icenowy[m]> are they hot enough? ;-) ⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ 14:17 < icenowy[m]> I think now in Europe it should be winter? Let ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ the BPi warm you ;-) ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ 14:17 <@KotCzarny> yeah, i have a pc to warm me ;)
