On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 07:18:57PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 05:57:21PM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > So we need to decide what we want. I think there probably is consensus
> > about:
> >
> > - We want people with non-free hardware to install Debian if they want to
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 05:57:21PM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > they will most likely simply not understand the point, and what makes
> > > free hardware so much better.
> >
> > > massively encourage users to use non-free hardware
> >
> > > link to a page suggesting free hardware over simi
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 05:57:21PM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> So we need to decide what we want. I think there probably is consensus about:
>
> - We want people with non-free hardware to install Debian if they want to.
> - We want people with non-free firmware installed to get updates for it.
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 10:13:52AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 11:00:38PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > they will most likely simply not understand the point, and what makes
> > free hardware so much better.
>
> > massively encourage users to use non-free hardware
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 04:56:25PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > My point is you shouldn't educate with lies and half-truths.
> Good point. Then you get to do it the correct way. Deal?
That's not how these things work though.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 04:22:23PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> My point is you shouldn't educate with lies and half-truths.
Good point. Then you get to do it the correct way. Deal?
Cheers,
--Toni++
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:16:01PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > > link to a page suggesting free hardware over similar non-free hardware
> >
> > There is no such thing. There is only non-free hardware without updates
> > for its software.
>
> "Whatever". My main point is imho to both make it ea
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 10:13:52AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 11:00:38PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > link to a page suggesting free hardware over similar non-free hardware
>
> There is no such thing. There is only non-free hardware without updates
> for its softw
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:26:03AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
I fscking do know what the docs say. They're ambiguous and it didn't
work in either interpretation way I could come up with when I was last
forced to install Debian on a system in a place where only wireless
LAN was available, like a mon
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 11:00:38PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> they will most likely simply not understand the point, and what makes
> free hardware so much better.
> massively encourage users to use non-free hardware
> link to a page suggesting free hardware over similar non-free hardware
The
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:39:12PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Every time I need a Debian ISO, it takes me minutes to find it.
> I didn't even know, that there were an ISO with non-free firmware.
>
> There should be a beautiful ISO download page, e.g.
> https://www.debian.org/download[
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:38:06 -0600, Michael Lustfield
wrote:
>As long as I avoid Nvidia, I usually have excellent luck finding systems
>(specifically laptops) that work well without anything from non-free.
Which current and available Wifi adapter works without non-free
firmware?
Greetings
Marc
--
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:45:33 +0800, Yao Wei wrote:
>My 2 cent is, we can distribute ISOs without non-free things, but we
>need an add-on pack to put into the USB flash drive for non-free network
>drivers, and we categorize the add-on not part of Debian. We also have
>to improve the website to poin
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:34:52 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>The docs say to dump firmware files or packages on a USB stick:
>
>https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch06s04.html.en
I fscking do know what the docs say. They're ambiguous and it didn't
work in either interpretation way I could come
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> It might be less disruptive to add a new field like Subsection; that'd avoid
> the need to change any of archive tools -- including ones not used on the
> official archive, like reprepro.
...
> Because Section: implies an unique section, whil
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:05:51AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> > * splitting non-free in subsets;
> > * adding a non-free-firmware area;
>
> I think we don't want either of these, instead we should *add*
> additional Packages files for
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 04:29:43PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
> the non-free ISO with firmware and other things needed to get typical
> modern hardware running, and improve the discoverability of the
> latter. I think we can
Adam Borowski writes:
> No distruption for existing systems, satisfies those concerned about
> accidentally installing "real" software (as much as the notion of
> executable code running on another processor in your machine, or even
> deeper inside the same processor, being less of software, is r
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:05:51AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> > * splitting non-free in subsets;
> > * adding a non-free-firmware area;
>
> I think we don't want either of these, instead we should *add*
> additional Packages files for
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> * splitting non-free in subsets;
> * adding a non-free-firmware area;
I think we don't want either of these, instead we should *add*
additional Packages files for each of the classes of non-free things
that people want to be able to is
Le lundi, 4 décembre 2017, 23.18:21 h CET Philipp Kern a écrit :
> On 04.12.2017 19:03, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:36:30PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Lars Wirzenius writes:
> >>> Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
> >>> the non-free IS
Am 05.12.2017 um 06:02 schrieb Paul Wise:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On 04.12.2017 19:03, Holger Levsen wrote:
>>> yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
>>> however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo,
>>> non-free
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 04.12.2017 19:03, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
>> however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo,
>> non-free-firmware (additionally to main, contrib and non
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Yes, I've never managed to get d-i to find firmware I've put on a USB
> myself, and always resorted to this approach. I never got around to
> reading the source to figure out where it expects to look (nor to
> improve the docs etc.)
The d
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:45:33AM +0800, Yao Wei wrote:
> About alternatives, I found it difficult to buy a brand-new laptop with
> 802.11ac wifi chip which is available on the market. All of them
> requires firmware or even non-free Linux modules.
All wifi chips use firmware so this is a bad a
On Dec 04, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> As long as I avoid Nvidia, I usually have excellent luck finding systems
> (specifically laptops) that work well without anything from non-free. With
> servers, I usually need something for the networking drivers but nothing else.
Looks like you are confused.
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 06:49:05PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:41:34PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > There are alternatives?
>
> always.
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> Holger
About alternatives, I found it difficult to buy a brand-new laptop with
802.11ac wifi c
On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 21:01 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I end up needing non-free firmware on most bare metal systems, but
> nothing else from non-free. I never remember how to include it at
> installation time. And I don't want us to gloss over the fact that
> it is non-free and therefore not
On 05.12.2017 00:11, Adam Borowski wrote:
> How exactly firmware is not software?
> We may take a concession and offer non-free or parts of non-free more
> prominently (as it's needed on modern x86, all wifi cards I've seen, etc),
> but let's not declare that non-software.
>
> Thus, until the situa
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:46:37PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 04, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > +1. I think firmware is something conceptually different than non-free
> > software in general, and it would be good to give users a simple way to
> > choose to enable non-free firmware without e
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:41:34 +0500
Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:34:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > For the discoverability, I would be quite comfortable with putting both
> > the free and the non-free download links prominantly on the page with the
> > non-free link g
On Dec 04, Russ Allbery wrote:
> +1. I think firmware is something conceptually different than non-free
> software in general, and it would be good to give users a simple way to
> choose to enable non-free firmware without enabling other non-free
> software.
Me too.
Mostly everybody believed thi
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:18:21PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I guess the question from my side is if the list of archive components
> in §5 of the Social Contract is supposed to be exhaustive or not. I.e.
> if we need to change that or not. If we don't need to: yay. (Maybe
> because we editorial
On 04.12.2017 19:03, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:36:30PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
>>> Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
>>&g
On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 10:34 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Holger Levsen writes:
>
> > yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
> > however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo,
> > non-free-firmware (additionally to main, contrib and non-free) wou
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 08:21:21PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:34:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >Holger Levsen writes:
> >
> >>yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
> >>however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth
Am 04.12.2017 um 19:03 schrieb Holger Levsen:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:36:30PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
>>> Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
>&g
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:34:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Holger Levsen writes:
yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo,
non-free-firmware (additionally to main, contrib and non-free) would be
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 06:49:05PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > There are alternatives?
>
> always.
Non-x86, I assume.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:41:34PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> There are alternatives?
always.
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:34:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> For the discoverability, I would be quite comfortable with putting both
>> the free and the non-free download links prominantly on the page with
>> the non-free link going to or closely tied with a page
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:34:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> For the discoverability, I would be quite comfortable with putting both
> the free and the non-free download links prominantly on the page with the
> non-free link going to or closely tied with a page that discusses the
> issues, expla
Holger Levsen writes:
> yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
> however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo,
> non-free-firmware (additionally to main, contrib and non-free) would be
> even better and also not need a GR.
+1. I think firmwar
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:36:30PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
> > Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
> > the non-free ISO with firmware and other thi
Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
> Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
> the non-free ISO with firmware and other things needed to get typical
> modern hardware running, and improve the discoverabil
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 04:37:24PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 11:39:56 +, Medical Wei wrote:
Actually I am thinking about people with non-free firmware problems to get
additional firmware and download them to another USB disk.
In this way the user don't need to re-download
On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:31:14 +0100,
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 08:28:49AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > I doubt there was any such decision, except by not knowing there was a
> > decision that could be made. The official, fully Free ISO (which is OK
> > for VMs and some
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:33:07PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Just because software comes pre-installed doesn't mean it is free. And
> if it is also impossible to replace the software you also can't update
> it with a free version so the user has even less freedom than when you
> can replace th
On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:21:49 +0100,
Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Jonathan Dowland writes:
>
> > Are *you* using non-free firmware?
>
> The machines sold by, for example, ThinkPenguin, work with the latest
> Debian release, without non-free software. There's one example, which
> responds to the rhetori
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Are we promoting hardware that *doesn't* require non-free firmware (not
> drivers, there is an important distinction) at the moment?
On our website, we don't promote hardware, just people/companies that
you can pay to install Debian for yo
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> IMHO, we need to go (more) one way or the other. We either reaffirm that
> firmware is in-scope for our DFSG values and stop compromising it with
> the non-free install images, or we look to revise the DFSG in line with
> modern realities a
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:21:49PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> and the Debian Project promotes hardware that doesn't
> require non-free firmware (because the Debian system by default needs no
> extra drivers for that hardware).
... equally with the hardware that uses pre-flashed firmware.
> > I don
Jonathan Dowland writes:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 09:17:59PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >I at least, and probably a lot of Debian contributors, would start
> >hating Debian for promoting hardware that needs non-free drivers if
> >the non-free ISO was the default one.
>
> Are we promoting har
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 04:46:24PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Yes. We're approaching a worst-of-both-worlds scenario: We're not Free
> enough to have the FSF recommend us, and we're not non-free enough for
> our OS to run on current hardware used by Linux beginners, and cause
> them to end up with
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:39:18AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > I at least, and probably a lot of Debian contributors, would start
> > hating Debian for promoting hardware that needs non-free drivers if the
> > non-free ISO was the default one.
>
> Are we promoting hardware that *doesn't* re
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 05:05:58PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Personally, as a developer, I will say there is one benefit of being
so user-unfriendly that the usable ISO is hidden under the
beware-of-leopard sign, which is that it serves as a "you have to be
this technically aware to install deb
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 09:17:59PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I at least, and probably a lot of Debian contributors, would start
hating Debian for promoting hardware that needs non-free drivers if the
non-free ISO was the default one.
Are we promoting hardware that *doesn't* require non-free
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 08:28:49AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
I doubt there was any such decision, except by not knowing there was a
decision that could be made. The official, fully Free ISO (which is OK
for VMs and some embedded systems, but normally a trap for the PCs we
expect new users to b
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Debian is also about providing an Universal Operating System, and I
>> have seen BIG installations of Debian on server farms moving to
>> PragBF because the Broadcom network chips on those servers required
>> people jumping t
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> Debian is also about providing an Universal Operating System, and I
> have seen BIG installations of Debian on server farms moving to PragBF
> because the Broadcom network chips on those servers required people
> jumping through hoops while PragB
On 12/03/2017 11:20 PM, Alf Gaida wrote:
> It is not only the last bit. And i don't think that 'a little bit more'
> promotion is sufficient. We should clearly state why we prefer the free
> ones. But we should not hide the non-free ones and should have them on
> the same site. With a clear stateme
On 03.12.2017 21:17, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> The FSF wouldn't be the only one. I at least, and probably a lot of
> Debian contributors, would start hating Debian for promoting hardware
> that needs non-free drivers if the non-free ISO was the default one. If
> this drives some of our users away, ne
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:59:08AM +, Sue Spence wrote:
> On 2 December 2017 at 11:49, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 12:32:29PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > > URL is https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/
> > cd-including-firmware/
> >
> > so who will
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 21:17:59 +0100, Thomas Goirand
wrote:
>The FSF wouldn't be the only one. I at least, and probably a lot of
>Debian contributors, would start hating Debian for promoting hardware
>that needs non-free drivers if the non-free ISO was the default one. If
>this drives some of our use
On 12/01/2017 05:31 PM, Alf Gaida wrote:
> On 01.12.2017 16:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
>>> I find it interesting that we're having this conversation at the same
>>> ti
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 04:37:24PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Last time I tried to download the non-free firmware and put it on
another USB disk, I ended up in changing to a shell from the installer
and unpacking the firmware blobs to the correct place manually because
I wasn't able to figure out h
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 21:38:46 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin
wrote:
>ALso AFAIK when packages are temporarily removed from testing for various
>reasons that may break the user systems (or, at least, make their
>experience worse when they want to install something). At least I've seen
>a position of "test
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:15:41 +, Jonathan Dowland
wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:34:40PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>>It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
>>firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
>>the ISO without non-free firmware?
>
>I
On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 11:39:56 +, Medical Wei wrote:
>Actually I am thinking about people with non-free firmware problems to get
>additional firmware and download them to another USB disk.
>In this way the user don't need to re-download an "non-official" ISO to
>install Debian.
Last time I trie
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 10:39:30PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> IMHO you should document yourself
> *before* trying something, and I am not even considering firmware at
> all. Or, if you prefer, you should not assume that everything works out
> of the box (in any field, thus not IT-restricted).
Th
Hi there,
On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 13:17:13 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:14:21PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> > > > It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> > > > firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
> > > > the
On Fri, 2017-12-01 at 12:16 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:31:09PM +0100, Alf Gaida wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Ian, thats dead easy - put the needed packages onto the iso and be done
> > with. The installer should have an option to opt-in contrib and/or
> > non-free. Done
On 2 December 2017 at 11:49, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 12:32:29PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > URL is https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/
> cd-including-firmware/
>
> so who will make nonfree.debian.net and non-free.debian.net
> http-redirect to that U
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 12:32:29PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> URL is
> https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/
so who will make nonfree.debian.net and non-free.debian.net
http-redirect to that URL? :)
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Descript
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 12:32:29PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > > http://get.debian.org
> > > Might not be beautiful, but it has the needed information, clearly
> > > spelt out.
> >
> > besides that I find that page still too confusing / not simple enough,
> > it also lacks information about t
Actually I am thinking about people with non-free firmware problems to get
additional firmware and download them to another USB disk.
In this way the user don't need to re-download an "non-official" ISO to
install Debian.
But if Policy can allow non-free firmware to go accompany with the ISO it
co
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 10:49:32AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:05:27PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > http://get.debian.org
> > Might not be beautiful, but it has the needed information, clearly
> > spelt out.
>
> besides that I find that page still too confusing / not
El sáb., 2 de dic. de 2017 a la(s) 05:17, Andrey Rahmatullin <
w...@debian.org> escribió:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:14:21PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> > > > It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> > > > firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to dow
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:05:27PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> http://get.debian.org
> Might not be beautiful, but it has the needed information, clearly
> spelt out.
besides that I find that page still too confusing / not simple enough,
it also lacks information about the non-free images.
--
c
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:14:21PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> > > It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> > > firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
> > > the ISO without non-free firmware?
> >
> > Every time I need a Debian ISO, it takes
I agree with this mail. It was difficult for me, find the ISO download
(especially non-free installer)
El vie., 1 de dic. de 2017 a la(s) 18:15, Luca Capello
escribió:
> Hi there,
>
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:39:12 +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > Quoting Paul Wise :
> > > It would have been b
Hello everybody,
I started on the free software world 7 years ago. My first distro was
Debian. But in that time Debian was "complicate" for me. So, I change to
Ubuntu. I used to use them like a simple user.
A couple of month ago I decided to contribute to Free software, so I choose
Debian.
Now,
The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-12-01 at 16:44, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Luca Capello wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:
People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g
was installed, the user only had RO access. That's the bigger
issue
On 2017-12-01 at 16:44, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Luca Capello wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:
>
>>> People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g
>>> was installed, the user only had RO access. That's the bigger
>>> issue.
>
>> Exactly, which
Luca Capello wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:
>> People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g was
>> installed, the user only had RO access. That's the bigger issue.
> Exactly, which IIRC is the normal behavior if the NTFS filesystem was
> not
Hi there,
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:39:12 +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Quoting Paul Wise :
> > It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> > firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
> > the ISO without non-free firmware?
>
> Every time I need a
Hi there,
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g was
> installed, the user only had RO access. That's the bigger issue.
Exactly, which IIRC is the normal behavior if the NTFS filesystem was
not properly "closed",
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:23:14PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 01.12.2017 um 07:34 schrieb Paul Wise:
> > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> >> * no support for RW on NTFS drives, only RO. This wasn't fixed even by
> >> installing ntfs-3g [0].
> >> I didn't have t
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 07:08:07PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > > > Of course, the stable amd64 netinst is useful only for VMs.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > It doesn't contain non-free firmware.
>
> OK, but that's an exaggeration. More often than not I was
> able to install Debian without non-free
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:02:45PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Look over the fence. How long did it
> take for Windows XP to disappear? Before that, how long was Windows 98
> king? How many users still cling to Windows 7? They don't need the
> newest, shiniest software. They want something stable t
On 1 December 2017 at 14:39, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Quoting Paul Wise :
>>
>> It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
>> firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
>> the ISO without non-free firmware?
>
>
> Every time I need a Debian ISO, it
Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin :
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:10:37PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Currently the stable amd64 netinst is linked from the front page (top
> right corner).
It is, indeed. Never saw it before...
It's a relatively recent improvement.
Well, I hadn't seen it, without
W. Martin Borgert dijo [Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:39:12PM +0100]:
> Every time I need a Debian ISO, it takes me minutes to find it.
> I didn't even know, that there were an ISO with non-free firmware.
>
> There should be a beautiful ISO download page, e.g.
> https://www.debian.org/download[s]/
> wit
Arturo Borrero Gonzalez dijo [Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:15:04PM +0100]:
> >> It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> >> firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
> >> the ISO without non-free firmware?
>
> What others say is true. It's not easy t
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:31:09PM +0100, Alf Gaida wrote:
> >
> Ian, thats dead easy - put the needed packages onto the iso and be done
> with. The installer should have an option to opt-in contrib and/or
> non-free. Done. Ok, that was the technical part.
Which has the potential to make the insta
Alf Gaida writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
> On 01.12.2017 16:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > FAOD I agree that the current situation with install images for random
> > PCs is quite unsatisfactory, but I don't know how to square the circle.
On 01.12.2017 16:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
>> I find it interesting that we're having this conversation at the same
>> time as a thread about how there should be a configuration optio
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:10:37PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin :
Of course, the stable amd64 netinst is useful only for VMs.
Why?
I suspect that this means that this image is useful to install a guest machine
in a virtualized environment. Maybe because indeed
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 03:34:04PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On December 1, 2017 7:15:04 AM EST, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez
> wrote:
> ...
> >Other thing is the branding topic. I would like to promote usage of
> >Debian testing for standard desktop/laptop users in personal
> >environment
On 01.12.2017 16:34, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Testing doesn't have security support (and since neither the security team
> nor maintainers can upload to it, it's the most problematic choice from a
> security support perspective). I don't think that's suitable to recommend to
> end users of any
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
