On Sun 28 Feb 2021 at 12:03:31 -0500, Celejar wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:49:58 +0000 > Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Fri 26 Feb 2021 at 16:28:56 -0500, Dan Ritter wrote: > > > > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:41:40PM +0000, Brian wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The > > > > > problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users > > > > > with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is > > > > > advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better > > > > > (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to > > > > > mind! > > > > > > > > No easy solution to that, sigh. > > > > > > Sure there is -- add a link directly underneath it saying "if > > > you require wireless connectivity during the installation, you > > > may need to use this [link: alternate installer]." > > > > "if you require wireless connectivity during the installation, we > > have a much better installer for you. [link: alternate installer]." > > > > (Don't ask ask why the inferior installer is prominent :).) > > Snark aside, what's wrong with something like this: > > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free > installation images available here."
Submitted as a bug against www.debian.org, it could fly. However, the word "standard" seems superfluous. It implies the existemce of non-standard (non-free?) installer images and these, of course, would not be capable of distribution. Bear in mind there is only one true installer. As for "alternate"; how can a non-free image be an alternative to a free one and be promoted for download on the Debian main page? -- Brian.
