On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 20:01:24 +0100
Alberto Zuin - liste wrote:
> When we have to install a distro on "special hardware" (an old dell
> server?) it's always an annoying thing to use a second pc to download
> the ethernet drivers, copy them to an USB key and so on.
> Having them in on the same me
Le 06/06/2015 21:01, Alberto Zuin - liste a écrit :
When we have to install a distro on "special hardware" (an old dell
server?) it's always an annoying thing to use a second pc to download
the ethernet drivers, copy them to an USB key and so on.
Not even an old Dell server :-) The stock
When we have to install a distro on "special hardware" (an old dell
server?) it's always an annoying thing to use a second pc to download
the ethernet drivers, copy them to an USB key and so on.
Having them in on the same media, with the option to "opt-out" (so it's
not mandatory for the user to
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:13:51AM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> From a legal point of view, I would also carefully refrain from
> redistributing any non-free firmware in Devuan, the main reason being
> that usually you *don't* have the right to redistribute it, and even
> if you have got this right from
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our
> installers by default.
Either by default or with an option to load it during the
installation. That is,of course, if one wants Devuan to run on
hardware that may n
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 11:36:09AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
None of the preceding arguments change the fact that if installing
Dng appears to be a poorly documented 40 step manual process, the
Well, if you have permission to distribute the non-free firmware for disc
controllers or network card
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 11:36:09 -0400
Steve Litt wrote:
> None of the preceding arguments change the fact that if installing
> Dng appears to be a poorly documented 40 step manual process, the
> person will throw Dng in the trash and use Ubuntu or Windows. Also,
> people who enjoy 40 step manual pro
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:54:54 +0200
Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:55:37AM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
> >I think one could always make the following argument: I have
> > paid
> >for a device which cannot work without the firmware; therefore what
> >I paid for is a set which i
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:55:37AM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
I think one could always make the following argument: I have paid
for a device which cannot work without the firmware; therefore what I
paid for is a set which includes hardware and firmware. Sorry but when
I am not sure if this
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 02:41:05 -0700
James Powell wrote:
> I think this might be the best option...
>
> Have firmware only for networking devices and scsi/sata/ide
> controllers on the net installation disk.
What about video? I've tried installing without a screen: It's
problematic.
SteveT
Ste
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 01:13:51 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
> Maybe I am the only one unable to see the problem in asking the owner
> of hardware which requires some essential non-free firmware during
> installation to put the required firmware on a USB stick during the
> first boot. If the user has got a
Hi all,
I break my silence again for my two cents.
I think we have a very good design in offering non-free firmware that is
essential to complete the installation of the distribution, and ensuring that
the end-user knows and explicitly consents. Offering two installation media
distinguished in
@lists.dyne.org<mailto:dng@lists.dyne.org>
Subject: Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
Le 05/06/2015 07:50, Isaac Dunham a écrit :
>
>> > From a legal point of view, I would also carefully refrain from
>> >redistributing any non-free firmware in Devuan, th
Le 05/06/2015 07:50, Isaac Dunham a écrit :
> From a legal point of view, I would also carefully refrain from
>redistributing any non-free firmware in Devuan, the main reason being
>that usually you*don't* have the right to redistribute it, and even
>if you have got this right from the HW co
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:13:51AM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> Maybe I am the only one unable to see the problem in asking the owner
> of hardware which requires some essential non-free firmware during
> installation to put the required firmware on a USB stick during the
> first boot. If the user has g
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 05:35:32PM +0200, Anto wrote:
[cut]
>
> Hello KatolaZ,
>
> Since Devuan is clearly a fork of Debian, does it have to respect
> Debian policy and follow what Debian does?
>
> I don't think the approach suggested in this thread will make Devuan
> the same as Ubuntu. The a
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Franco Lanza wrote:
> I think we can draw a line in this discussion this way:
>
> Daniel will implement the installer in the way he was saying,
> adding non-free firmwares limited to the ones that if missed are
> blocking for the installer ( so, nothing more than f
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 21:31:29 +0200
Anto wrote:
>
>
> On 04/06/15 20:51, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > .
> >
> > .
> >
> > Imagine the difference...
> >
> > You come home from Costco clutching your brand new laptop, all hot
> > and bothered to install Devuan because you've heard it's simpler
> > an
On 04/06/15 21:31, Anto wrote:
On 04/06/15 20:51, Steve Litt wrote:
.
.
Imagine the difference...
You come home from Costco clutching your brand new laptop, all hot and
bothered to install Devuan because you've heard it's simpler and better
made than the others. You boot your Devuan DVD,
On 04/06/15 20:51, Steve Litt wrote:
.
.
Imagine the difference...
You come home from Costco clutching your brand new laptop, all hot and
bothered to install Devuan because you've heard it's simpler and better
made than the others. You boot your Devuan DVD, and it tells you your
network car
I think we can draw a line in this discussion this way:
Daniel will implement the installer in the way he was saying,
adding non-free firmwares limited to the ones that if missed are
blocking for the installer ( so, nothing more than few firmwares for
things like network cards or wifi, for examp
Am Donnerstag, 4. Juni 2015 schrieb Steve Litt:
> [...]
> Why, why, WHY was that not stated *right up front*? From the
> beginning, *scream* "Don't waste time: If you get a prompt saying
> unsupported hardware, load the right stuff into your thumbdrive and
> just try again." Very explicit, exact in
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:08:07 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> >
> > But Debian does allow the installation of nonfree drivers. And, if
> > I recall correctly last time I installed (a long, long time ago),
> > it did ask the ques
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:09:21 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 09:51:36AM -0400, Clarke Sideroad wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> >
> > With all the effort that has gone into this so far it deserves to be
> > a major distro and it would appear to this guy watching from the
> > fringe that the
> On June 3, 2015 at 9:33 PM John Morris wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 02:52 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 06:18:37PM -0500, John Morris wrote:
> > > Non-free software: NO, Firmware: YES. So ixnay on things like the Nvidia
> > > drivers but yes on blobs. The reas
Le 04/06/2015 17:08, KatolaZ a écrit :
The debian installer does*not* provide non-free firmware but allows
the user to provide it in a separete medium (e.g.,a USB stick) and the
installer will ask during installation if the user wants to use that
firmware.
There is a*separate* netinst CD whic
On 04/06/15 17:08, KatolaZ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
[cut]
But Debian does allow the installation of nonfree drivers. And, if I
recall correctly last time I installed (a long, long time ago), it did
ask the question.
We want the reputation of reje
On 06/04/2015 10:09 AM, KatolaZ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 09:51:36AM -0400, Clarke Sideroad wrote:
[cut]
With all the effort that has gone into this so far it deserves to be
a major distro and it would appear to this guy watching from the
fringe that the necessary brain power is here, bu
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
[cut]
>
> But Debian does allow the installation of nonfree drivers. And, if I
> recall correctly last time I installed (a long, long time ago), it did
> ask the question.
>
> We want the reputation of rejecting monolithic blocks
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 03:09:21PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 09:51:36AM -0400, Clarke Sideroad wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> >
> > With all the effort that has gone into this so far it deserves to be
> > a major distro and it would appear to this guy watching from the
> > fringe th
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 09:51:36AM -0400, Clarke Sideroad wrote:
[cut]
>
> With all the effort that has gone into this so far it deserves to be
> a major distro and it would appear to this guy watching from the
> fringe that the necessary brain power is here, but without a
> noticeably sized us
On 06/04/2015 07:23 AM, KatolaZ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 11:36:22AM +0100, David Harrison wrote:
On 04/06/2015 02:52, dng-requ...@lists.dyne.org wrote:
If it is the resounding will of the community to absolutely not ship the
default installer with this approach, then I will withdraw from
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 03:01:21PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> On 04/06/15 14:34, James Powell wrote:
> >I agree that there should be a scan ran to inform the system user that
> >binary firmware is needed at boot, but likewise, if the system needs it,
> >it should be an offered opti
On 04/06/15 13:23, KatolaZ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 11:36:22AM +0100, David Harrison wrote:
On 04/06/2015 02:52, dng-requ...@lists.dyne.org wrote:
If it is the resounding will of the community to absolutely not ship the
default installer with this approach, then I will withdraw from Dev
Guys, free software is free software; it has never encompassed
hardware. And firmware belongs to hardware; it looks like software but
it is not, it is a configuration of hardware. It is in the kernel only
for the purpose of being loaded into the device, not to be called.
Distros who reject
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 11:36:22AM +0100, David Harrison wrote:
> On 04/06/2015 02:52, dng-requ...@lists.dyne.org wrote:
> >If it is the resounding will of the community to absolutely not ship the
> >default installer with this approach, then I will withdraw from Devuan
> >and someone else can take
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:22:10PM -0400, Peter Olson wrote:
[cut]
>
> Although I rank among the purists, I could go along with this idea:
>
> Two ISO/repo configurations.
>
> One which is free.
>
> The other which works if the first doesn't.
>
Seconded. I myself am among the purists, and I
On 04/06/2015 02:52, dng-requ...@lists.dyne.org wrote:
If it is the resounding will of the community to absolutely not ship the
default installer with this approach, then I will withdraw from Devuan
and someone else can take over the maintenance of the packages I've been
working on.
Daniel, you
Daniel Reurich wrote on 04.06.2015 03:29:
> I agree in principle about using strictly free/libre open source
> software, and where I have the choice I personaly will select hardware
> that aligns with those principles.
>
> However, I would not want my choices to become the tool that would
> p
Le 04/06/2015 01:18, John Morris a écrit :
On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 12:45 +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> >
> >I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware
> >in our installers by default.
> >
>My two cents on this
On 3 Jun 2015 8:50 pm, "Vince Mulhollon" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Laurent Bercot
wrote:
>>
>> when the user buys such a piece of hardware
>
>
> Just be careful, the assumption is the user is the installer is the
buyer, and frankly most of the machines I've installed in the las
On 04/06/15 03:29, Daniel Reurich wrote:
Ok,
That was interesting
Here's my thinking on the how and the why.
definition of terms:
user = the person using the installer to install Devuan.
module = linux kernel module.
hardware = reference to the particular chipset(s) in scope, be they
So
James Powell [2015-06-04 02:57]:
> Firmware is part of the kernel in a sense because it is loaded by the
> kernel at boot. It only interacts with the kernel and the kernel modules
> to provide any missing functionality, like a header file does, except
> rather than C code, it's prebuilt binary lan
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our
> installers by default.
I would like to see essential "installation-related" firmware available
on the installer media if it is properly redistrib
> On June 3, 2015 at 5:37 PM Steve Litt wrote:
>
> This is exactly my preference too. Let me easily choose at install
> time. Also, have the nonfree stuff in its own repository so if I
> include the nonfree stuff I can just add it to my sources.list.
Although I rank among the purists, I could go
Hi Jim,
On 04/06/15 14:34, James Powell wrote:
I agree that there should be a scan ran to inform the system user that
binary firmware is needed at boot, but likewise, if the system needs it,
it should be an offered option at installation time also, just not
offered by default as enabled. The use
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 21:52:20 -0400
From: jud...@gmail.com
To: dan...@centurion.net.nz
CC: dng@lists.dyne.org
Subject: Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Reurich wrote:
Ok,
That was interesting
Here's my thinking on the h
On 04/06/15 13:52, Jude Nelson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Reurich mailto:dan...@centurion.net.nz>> wrote:
Ok,
That was interesting
Here's my thinking on the how and the why.
definition of terms:
user = the person using the installer to install Devu
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Reurich
wrote:
> Ok,
>
> That was interesting
>
> Here's my thinking on the how and the why.
>
> definition of terms:
> user = the person using the installer to install Devuan.
> module = linux kernel module.
> hardware = reference to the particular chip
Applause!
Daniel, that is a well reasoned approach that puts the users first,
gives them information, and gives them the choice. I think that is why
we are here, at least I am.
- Nate
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true
* On 2015 03 Jun 16:55 -0500, alexus / dotcommon wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:37:22 +1200
> Daniel Reurich wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in
> >our installers by default.
>
> So that people should fork Devuan to get a truly free sys
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 02:52 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 06:18:37PM -0500, John Morris wrote:
> > Non-free software: NO, Firmware: YES. So ixnay on things like the Nvidia
> > drivers but yes on blobs. The reasoning on where to draw the line is
> > pretty clear cut.
>
> H
Ok,
That was interesting
Here's my thinking on the how and the why.
definition of terms:
user = the person using the installer to install Devuan.
module = linux kernel module.
hardware = reference to the particular chipset(s) in scope, be they SoC
or plug in cards or devices.
firmware = no
e.org<mailto:dng@lists.dyne.org>
Subject: Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 06:18:37PM -0500, John Morris wrote:
> Non-free software: NO, Firmware: YES. So ixnay on things like the Nvidia
> drivers but yes on blobs. The reasoning on where to draw th
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 06:18:37PM -0500, John Morris wrote:
> Non-free software: NO, Firmware: YES. So ixnay on things like the Nvidia
> drivers but yes on blobs. The reasoning on where to draw the line is
> pretty clear cut.
How exactly firmware is not software? Both are strings of bits encod
On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 12:45 +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> >
> > I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware
> > in our installers by default.
> >
> My two cents on this point: I would really prefer *not* having an
On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 22:06 +, alexus / dotcommon wrote:
> On 2015-06-03 13:43, KatolaZ wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 05:24:30AM -0700, James Powell wrote:
> >> Should it be default added, no, but offered for choice? Absolutely.
My vote:
Default: No!
Offered for choice: Yes (in some conv
On 2015-06-03 13:43, KatolaZ wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 05:24:30AM -0700, James Powell wrote:
[cut]
Should it be default added, no, but offered for choice? Absolutely.
But how far this should/will go? After having offered the possibility
of bringing in non-free firmware during the inst
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:08:52 -0400
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > Now, the base installer is such a vector of individuation, as
> > Debian 8 demonstrated by using it to install systemd. Systemd is
> > free software, but we don't like it to be installed by default.
> > Now we would frown at it and happ
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:37:22 +1200
Daniel Reurich wrote:
Hi,
I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in
our installers by default.
So that people should fork Devuan to get a truly free system by default?
It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:25:42 -0300
hellekin wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 12:06 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> >
> > IMO, network hardware that needs a non-free blob is the most glaring
> > issue
> >
> *** Yes, indeed, many computers come with broken hardware that won't
> work without installing proprietary
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:48:55 +0200
Anto wrote:
>
>
> On 03/06/15 10:37, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free
> > firmware in our installers by default.
> >
> > It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic
> > o
* On 2015 03 Jun 11:33 -0500, Renaud OLGIATI wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:25:42 -0300
> hellekin wrote:
>
> > the official Devuan network installer should not, IMO, support this
> > case. It is not against users, but against manufacturers.
>
> So you want to punish users, for the sins of man
On 03/06/2015 19:50, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
Just be careful, the assumption is the user is the installer is the
buyer, and frankly most of the machines I've installed in the last 20
years, that has not been the case.
My point exactly, and my apology for entertaining the confusion with a
poor c
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 07:06:08PM +0200, Laurent Bercot wrote:
[cut]
> But machine installation is not the time for advocacy. The decision
> has already been made, and at that point, telling users that it sucks
> isn't going to help anyone, it's just going to make the distribution
> look bad.
>
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:25:42PM -0300, hellekin wrote:
[cut]
> *** Yes, indeed, many computers come with broken hardware that won't
> work without installing proprietary software. I think this case is the
> single case that should be exemplary: the official Devuan network
> installer should n
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 06:15:34PM +0200, Franco Lanza wrote:
[cut]
>
> Maybe we can think about having 2 images for every iso/installer, the
> default onw as usual without any non-free package, and another one,
> under a non-free directory structure with some large readme, with
> non-free drive
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Laurent Bercot
wrote:
> when the user buys such a piece of hardware
>
Just be careful, the assumption is the user is the installer is the buyer,
and frankly most of the machines I've installed in the last 20 years, that
has not been the case.
The old "heres a d
I disagree. I learned many moons ago not to necessarily depend on the
distro for HW drivers, and as such don't consider them responsible or
"sucky" because they didn't. I've always thought of it as an added bonus
when they do, which is why I ran Ubuntu on my desktop for years until the
systemd nazi
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Franco Lanza wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in
> our
> > installers by default.
> >
> > It's a deviation from Debians traditional p
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:41:26PM -0300, hellekin wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 11:37 AM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> >
> > about licensing purity.
> >
>
> and:
>
> > But whatever you do, don't paternalize the users. There's nothing more
> > infuriating than an infantilizing message in the way of what y
On 03/06/2015 18:41, hellekin wrote:
*** I must I was almost agreeing until "moralistic crap". This is
your opinion, and in my own, an unfounded one. What we're talking
about here is about technology, not moralistic anything.
The technology we're building is one that empowers the user, and it
On 06/03/2015 11:37 AM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
>
> about licensing purity.
>
and:
> But whatever you do, don't paternalize the users. There's nothing more
> infuriating than an infantilizing message in the way of what you want to
> do.
>
and:
> Your users chose Devuan: they already have made
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:25:42 -0300
hellekin wrote:
> the official Devuan network installer should not, IMO, support this case. It
> is not against users, but against manufacturers.
So you want to punish users, for the sins of manufacturers ?
Cheers,
Ron.
--
I don't like
On 06/03/2015 12:06 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>
> IMO, network hardware that needs a non-free blob is the most glaring
> issue
>
*** Yes, indeed, many computers come with broken hardware that won't
work without installing proprietary software. I think this case is the
single case that should be exe
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our
> installers by default.
>
> It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one that
> shows we care about the end users.
Le 03/06/2015 11:48, Anto a écrit :
On 03/06/15 10:37, Daniel Reurich wrote:
Hi,
I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware
in our installers by default.
It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic
one that shows we care about the end us
* On 2015 03 Jun 08:42 -0500, hellekin wrote:
> As Devuan offers a pretty easy and automated way to make a custom build,
> maybe we should take advantage of this, and provide a way for
> downloading non-free blobs during install, after the detection was made.
> This way would at least make users
On 03/06/2015 13:32, Jaret Cantu wrote:
Freedom of choice, but let them know that their choice makes baby kitten angels
cry.
Give freedom of choice if it's what the distribution is about; or don't
give the option if the distribution is about licensing purity.
But whatever you do, don't pate
On 06/03/2015 04:37 AM, Daniel Reurich wrote:
Hi,
I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware
in our installers by default.
It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic
one that shows we care about the end users.
Keen for feedback.
I like t
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> If we were ok with unmodifiable undebuggable unfixable software, we'd be
> using Windows.
Thought that was lead in to a new systemd joke right up till the last
word. Not bad, not bad at all.
Firmware is analogous to ADA compliance stuff f
gt;;
dng@lists.dyne.org<mailto:dng@lists.dyne.org>
Subject: Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 05:24:30AM -0700, James Powell wrote:
[cut]
>
> Should it be default added, no, but offered for choice? Absolutely.
>
But how far this s
> On June 3, 2015 at 7:39 AM Adam Borowski wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> > I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our
> > installers by default.
>
> If we were ok with unmodifiable undebuggable unfixable software,
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 05:24:30AM -0700, James Powell wrote:
[cut]
>
> Should it be default added, no, but offered for choice? Absolutely.
>
But how far this should/will go? After having offered the possibility
of bringing in non-free firmware during the installation, shall devuan
also offer
On 06/03/2015 05:53 AM, James Powell wrote:
> If the firmware aids in compatibility and driver support then yes, include it.
>
*** I think non-free anything should not be "included" by default. For
the sake of "universality", they should be available to people who
actually need them. Many people
Am Mittwoch, 3. Juni 2015 schrieb James Powell:
> While keeping to the libre creed is nice, at least having the option for
> firmware will help compatibility with hardware that requires it. Sadly, this
> is becoming more commonplace as newer hardware is released. More and more
> modern hardware
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:39:21PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> > I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our
> > installers by default.
>
> If we were ok with unmodifiable undebuggable unfixable sof
el Reurich<mailto:dan...@centurion.net.nz>
Cc: dng@lists.dyne.org<mailto:dng@lists.dyne.org>
Subject: Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like a straw poll on whether we should i
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware
> in our installers by default.
>
> It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic
> one that shows we care about the end users.
>
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our
> installers by default.
If we were ok with unmodifiable undebuggable unfixable software, we'd be
using Windows.
--
// If you believe in so-called "intell
On 06/03/2015 06:15 AM, Irrwahn wrote:
+1 for making this an option in the installer, deselected by default.
I like the idea of having a means to explicitly opt-in for non-free
firmware at install time for convenience, but not such firmware being
forced into the installation. The freedom of cho
Urban, Anto
It's only a convenience thing for the net-installer as it's a real pain
to have to go hunting for a third party iso just to get the installer
running becuase of a network card requiring non-free firmware.
I think it would be good to warn and give an option of installing the
non-f
+1 for making this an option in the installer, deselected by default.
I like the idea of having a means to explicitly opt-in for non-free
firmware at install time for convenience, but not such firmware being
forced into the installation. The freedom of choice thingy, revisited.
Cheers,
Urban
On 03/06/15 10:37, Daniel Reurich wrote:
Hi,
I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware
in our installers by default.
It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic
one that shows we care about the end users.
Keen for feedback.
Hello Dan
iel
Reurich<mailto:dan...@centurion.net.nz>
Subject: Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
Yes. And explicitly say that the decision may be reverted later, if
that fight seems winnable.
It's best to pick one's fights.
Arnt
Yes. And explicitly say that the decision may be reverted later, if
that fight seems winnable.
It's best to pick one's fights.
Arnt
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Hi,
I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in
our installers by default.
It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one
that shows we care about the end users.
Keen for feedback.
--
Daniel Reurich
Centurion Computer Technology (2005)
97 matches
Mail list logo
