On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 08:19 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Paul Wise writes:
> > Since the hardware most users use causes the first problem, the people
> > fielding these support requests see that the free installer is in most
> > cases not useful and therefore want to stop building or working on
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Paul Wise writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> >> So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
> >> appears solved or possible to solve.
> >
> > As I understand it th
I was asked offlist to answer how Proposal D would affect the display of
the non-free installer on Debian websites, and in particular:
* Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer?
tl;dr: No
* Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in
https://lists
> Is this helping our users or does it help the free software cause if those
> users just go somewhere else and asscociate Debian with "broken"?
> Those are lost users, and they will never learn and then care about their
> missing freedoms.
Not only they are lost users; but they will spend the nex
Simon Josefsson writes:
> What I'm specifically objecting to is that if Steve's proposal were
> implemented I believe the result would violate our social contract that
> the Debian system is 100% free.
This part I understand, and indeed this is why I proposed a ballot option
to modify the Social
Hi all,
Moving this into a separate thread from all the discussion for a bit more
visibility.
Thank you for all the discussion over the past couple of days about my
proposal and about possible rewordings to point 5 of the Social Contract.
The short summary is that, after considering that feedback
Hi Russ,
thank you for working on option E! :)
that said, I think I want option F, where F is to E what B is to A,
(according how I read https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003 now)
or IOW, option E where both types of installers (with and without
non-free firmwarez) are offered. (so a new opti
[ Apologies for going quiet again - it's been a busy few days,
including testing and publishing two sets of point release images. ]
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:54:06PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Steve McIntyre writes:
>
>> That looks good to me - concise and clear. Thanks!
>
>Steve, what do you
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 10:37:03AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" writes:
>
>> I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
>
>I disagree strongly on this.
>
>We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're
>making to our us
Hi Simon!
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:16:48AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Steve McIntyre writes:
>
>I read your proposals as a deep frustration with this situation and a
>desire to solve the problem faster than waiting for free software
>support for relevant hardware to materialize. I don't th
Hi Russ,
As ever, I think you've described things very well here. Thanks for
this!
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 01:22:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Simon Josefsson writes:
...
>> I think I'm missing a better problem statement to motivate any changes
>> here. The ones I've tried to understand, b
On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 10:28 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> * Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer?
> tl;dr: No
> * Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/683a7c0e69b081aae8c46bd4027bf7537475624a.ca...@deb
Holger Levsen writes:
> or maybe, it's possible to reword option E, because my only problem
> is with the last sentence which reads
> "We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing
> the current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages."
> and which I'd rath
Paul Wise writes:
> Thanks. So it seems B/C/D/NOTA are approximately duplicates,
> except that B/C specify slightly more about non-free presentation.
I think that may be true from the perspective of what Debian is *allowed*
to do, but not in the sense of the guidance that the project is providin
On 9/11/22 19:41, Steve McIntyre wrote:
As far as many vendors are concerned, the firmware blobs are
basically part of the hardware. They're just provided in a cheaper,
more flexible way - loading things at runtime.
To me, this is an important part of the situation we find ourselves in.
It seems
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 02:16:53AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> However, I feel strongly that the non-free installer *has* to be
> handled differently. If not, we're choosing to fail on (some of) our
> principles. This is why I'm here with this GR after all.
So do I. Or does proposal A describe
16 matches
Mail list logo
