bwt ! 1st I've always saw Debian having brltty support from the start 2nd Just install the firmware instruction here and your problem will be solved. https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware
Stop blaiming other people when the problem is a lack of research on your part and expectation all work "out of the box" in all situation. Take destiny into your own hand. On 2022-04-20 08:32, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote: > Answer bellow this awful piece of text from someone who doesn't know how > to make a space between line. > > On 2022-04-20 06:04, Devin Prater wrote: >> I recently tried to install Debian onto my new laptop. It's an HP >> Pavilian (can't remember the exact model sorry) with an AMD Rizon 5500 >> processor with integrated Radion graphic. All seemed to work well, until >> I came to the detecting Internet stage of the install. It couldn't >> detect my Wi-fi card. So then, I found the Non-free section and got the >> CD version? I guess that's what I should have gotten? The DVD one is the >> live environment right? See how confusion this can be? Anyway, I booted >> that up, pressed s then Enter cause I'm blind, then began the install >> again. The same thing happened. So apparently even the non-free images >> don't contain all of the drivers. I know a driver for my card exists, >> since Fedora has it. So, since Debian "won't work" on my system (that's >> what a user *will* think), I went back to Windows, where I have all the >> few games blind people can play, the MUD clients with sound packs, >> Twitter/Mastodon/Telegram clients that were made by the blind, for the >> blind, a screen reader with wide community support, and a DE with >> developers focusingon accessibility. Of course, that's just my use case >> as a blind person. Others may focus on the graphics card, Wi-fi, sound >> card, power management (My battery will never run out of power according >> to acpi), or CPU management. >> Ah well. Maybe Ubuntu will have the Wi-fi card. I mean they are a >> company but when a group of regular people don't give something that I >> can even install without plugging in my phone, finishing install, >> somehow finding the right driver for my Wi-fi card, and then finally >> being able to use it, then the first thing people will do is go find >> something else. They'll say "Okay well Debian is just for servers and >> 'FossBros'," shake their head, and move on. >> This is from a user's perspective. It's hard enough to get them to want >> to use Linux. A lot of people don't even know you can change the >> operating system on your computer! So then for them to try Debian, which >> is probably one of, if not the most, accessible of all distros thanks to >> our few Debian Accessibility team, and then find that their network card >> isn't going to work, they'll run back to Windows. And to be clear, for a >> blind person, the only thing Linux has over Windows at this point is >> that you can print text *and* images to a Braille printer. You can't do >> that in Windows without expensive software. All the games, software for >> the blind, Twitter/Mastodon/Telegram clients, all that is on Windows. So >> for a blind person, switching from all that is gonna be even harder. So >> the first sign of resistance will send them back. >> Also, should we have to work for Debian? Shouldn't it make our computing >> life easier by at least including the stuff we need to use all parts of >> our computer? Besides that, with computers becoming even more "secure" >> with Microsoft working on a chip, AMD and Intel having their stuff, >> we'll *have* to include nonfree stuff in Debian eventually. Might as >> well do it now to make users' lives a little easier for practice. >> Another thing I just thought of, I wonder if, when we find hardware in >> the installer that we don't have drivers for, if we can search for >> drivers on apt, including the nonfree section, and ask if the user wants >> to install them? The user would probably have to connect their phone for >> the Wi-fi bit, but then all the stuff could easily be installed. >> Devin Prater >> r.d.t.pra...@gmail.com <mailto:r.d.t.pra...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 2:49 AM Pirate Praveen <prav...@onenetbeyond.org >> <mailto:prav...@onenetbeyond.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2022, ഏപ്രിൽ 19 5:57:46 AM IST, Steve McIntyre <st...@einval.com >> <mailto:st...@einval.com>>ൽ എഴുതി >> >This tension extends to our installation and live media. As non-free is >> >officially not considered part of Debian, our official media cannot >> include >> >anything from non-free. This has been a deliberate policy for many >> years. >> >Instead, we have for some time been building a limited parallel set of >> >"unofficial non-free" images which include non-free firmware. These >> non-free >> >images are produced by the same software that we use for the >> official images, >> >and by the same team. >> > >> >There are a number of issues here that make developers and users >> unhappy: >> > >> > 1. Building, testing and publishing two sets of images takes more >> effort. >> >> Can we reduce the tests? Do we really need to test both images for >> all cases? >> >> > 2. We don't really want to be providing non-free images at all, from a >> > philosophy point of view. So we mainly promote and advertise >> the preferred >> > official free images. That can be a cause of confusion for >> users. We do >> > link to the non-free images in various places, but they're not >> so easy to >> > find. >> >> I'm fine making it easier to find. >> >> > 3. Using non-free installation media will cause more installations >> to use >> > non-free software by default. That's not a great story for us, >> and we may >> > end up with more of our users using non-free software and >> believing that >> > it's all part of Debian. >> >> So a separate non-free firmware section as you proposed could work. >> >> > 4. A number of users and developers complain that we're wasting >> their time by >> > publishing official images that are just not useful for a lot >> (a majority?) >> > of users. >> >> Isn't voluntary work being able to work on things you care and not >> necessarily what majority wants? >> >> I can understand if the current volunteers that produce and test >> fully free images don't want to continue and no one else step up. >> Shouldn't this be a call for volunteers ? >> >> May be more people step in to maintain the free images if there is a >> call for volunteers. >> >> >We should do better than this. >> > >> >Options >> >======= >> > >> >The status quo is a mess, and I believe we can and should do things >> >differently. >> > >> >I see several possible options that the images team can choose from >> here. >> >However, several of these options could undermine the principles of >> Debian. We >> >don't want to make fundamental changes like that without the clear >> backing of >> >the wider project. That's why I'm writing this... >> > >> > 1. Keep the existing setup. It's horrible, but maybe it's the best >> we can do? >> > (I hope not!) >> > >> >> As I said earlier, making non-free more prominent and more >> volunteers to maintain fully free images could work to reduce load >> on existing volunteers. >> >> > 2. We could just stop providing the non-free unofficial images >> altogether. >> > That's not really a promising route to follow - we'd be making >> it even >> > harder for users to install our software. While ideologically >> pure, it's >> > not going to advance the cause of Free Software. >> >> I think we should continue creating non-free images. >> >> > 3. We could stop pretending that the non-free images are >> unofficial, and maybe >> > move them alongside the normal free images so they're published >> together. >> > This would make them easier to find for people that need them, >> but is >> > likely to cause users to question why we still make any images >> without >> > firmware if they're otherwise identical. >> >> This should be fine. This could be used as an opportunity to educate >> users and recommending to choose hardware which works with free >> images. We can highlight h-node.org <http://h-node.org> here. >> >> > 4. The images team technically could simply include non-free into >> the official >> > images, and add firmware packages to the input lists for those >> images. >> > However, that would still leave us with problem 3 from above >> (non-free >> > generally enabled on most installations). >> >> I don't think we should do this. >> >> > 5. We could split out the non-free firmware packages into a new >> > non-free-firmware component in the archive, and allow a >> specific exception >> > only to allow inclusion of those packages on our official >> media. We would >> > then generate only one set of official media, including those >> non-free >> > firmware packages. >> >> I'm okay with it only if we don't get enough volunteers to maintain >> two images. >> >> > (We've already seen various suggestions in recent years to >> split up the >> > non-free component of the archive like this, for example into >> > non-free-firmware, non-free-doc, non-free-drivers, etc. >> Disagreement >> > (bike-shedding?) about the split caused us to not make any >> progress on >> > this. I believe this project should be picked up and completed. >> We don't >> > have to make a perfect solution here immediately, just >> something that works >> > well enough for our needs today. We can always tweak and >> improve the setup >> > incrementally if that's needed.) >> > >> >These are the most likely possible options, in my opinion. If you >> have a better >> >suggestion, please let us know! >> >> As mentioned earlier, call for volunteers to maintain two sets or >> reducing the number of test cases (some cases only tested with >> non-free and some tested only with free images) >> >> >I'd like to take this set of options to a GR, and do it soon. I >> want to get a >> >clear decision from the wider Debian project as to how to organise >> firmware and >> >installation images. If we do end up changing how we do things, I >> want a clear >> >mandate from the project to do that. >> > >> >My preference, and rationale >> >============================ >> > >> >Mainly, I want to see how the project as a whole feels here - this >> is a big >> >issue that we're overdue solving. >> > >> >What would I choose to do? My personal preference would be to go >> with option 5: >> >split the non-free firmware into a special new component and >> include that on >> >official media. >> > >> >Does that make me a sellout? I don't think so. I've been passionately >> >supporting and developing Free Software for more than half my life. My >> >philosophy here has not changed. However, this is a complex and nuanced >> >situation. I firmly believe that sharing software freedom with our >> users comes >> >with a responsibility to also make our software useful. If users >> can't easily >> >install and use Debian, that helps nobody. >> > >> >By splitting things out here, we would enable users to install and >> use Debian >> >on their hardware, without promoting/pushing higher-level non-free >> software in >> >general. I think that's a reasonable compromise. This is simply a >> change to >> >recognise that hardware requirements have moved on over the years. >> > >> >Further work >> >============ >> > >> >If we do go with the changes in option 5, there are other things we >> could do >> >here for better control of and information about non-free firmware: >> > >> > 1. Along with adding non-free firmware onto media, when the >> installer (or live >> > image) runs, we should make it clear exactly which firmware >> packages have >> > been used/installed to support detected hardware. We could link >> to docs >> > about each, and maybe also to projects working on Free >> re-implementations. >> >> Good idea. >> >> > 2. Add an option at boot to explicitly disable the use of the non-free >> > firmware packages, so that users can choose to avoid them. >> > >> >Acknowledgements >> >================ >> > >> >Thanks to people who reviewed earlier versions of this document >> and/or made >> >suggestions for improvement, in particular: >> > >> > • Cyril Brulebois >> > • Matthew Garrett >> > • David Leggett >> > • Martin Michlmayr >> > • Andy Simpkins >> > • Neil Williams >> > >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> > > No such confusion... > > https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware > > Here's a nice guide on how to install the firmware on ANY damn > DVD/CD/USB/Pogo stick > > No there's both install DVD, install CD, live CD, live DVD, net install, > etc... > > Even explanation on how to make your own boot disk. > > What did we do 30 years ago before crying for help on a mailing list ? > We'd read the manual BEFORE trying out something. > This still applies today. > -- Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside -Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development