On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: >> >>> Ben Finney wrote: >>>> The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are >>>> not yet operable with Debian, >>> Which wireless card is supported by debian without any sourceless >>> firmware, either loaded by the kernel or present on the chip? >> >> The latter is not a concern. See, the SC says that non-free junk >> should not be in main; it can be elsewhere. So, the user is free to use >> non-free firmware -- so if the user acquires it along with the >> hardware, we don't care. > > According to the SC yes. But I can't see the reasoning behind the > argument that firmware loaded on boot is 'evil' and the corresponding > hardware should not be supported while the same firmware is 'good' when > it is already present on boot and not re-loaded.
It is not good. It is still non-free. Debian should distribute neither. Since Debian does not currently distribute hardware, we do not have to worry about the latter. The fact that users might use non-free junk is their business. Debian should not be an enabler in taking away users freedoms -- if they do so on their own it is their business. So the SC says Debian shall not have non-free junk. If the users obtain the non-free crap (say, embedded in hardware or from the non-free repo), we shall support their decision. > Arguably hardware, that loads firmware on boot, has the advantage, that > programming errors or security holes can be patched, while those with > code on flash can't be patched. It seems ridiculous, if Debian supports > the latter and leaves users of the former out in the cold. So some means of getting non-free junk are more secure than other means of getting non-free junk. However, since there is no source, the users can't do any learning or fixing themselves -- that freedom is not given to them. So, we should not stand in the way of users getting non-free junk however they want. We just do not distribute it in Debian. >> The SC only talks about what is part of the Debian system. We >> also say people might need non-free stuff, and we put that in a special >> area on our archive. > > There should be a distinction between 'non-free' software that is part > of the OS or part of user applications and firmware that is just loaded > for peripherials. These are completely different cups of tea. Why? I see no rationale why only some freedoms are important. I think that being able to change stuff in how my iwlwifi works would be nice, as long as I continue to conform to the laws of the land. >>> Would you imply that wireless networking should never be usable by >>> debian users, if it turns out that publication of sourcecode is illegal >>> in countries like the US or the EU? (Modifications of the firmware are >>> probably illegal, because they can modify the electromagnetic emission >>> of the devices, potentially killing people around it.) >> >> Strawman. Debian users like me do use nvidia, and iwlwifi, even >> though my iwlwifi driver uses firmware not in Debian (it is in >> non-free). > > I have no doubt that savvy developers like all on this list will know > how to deal with this. Let me be the advocatus of a 'normal user' who > does not _want_ to be bothered by googling his way out of all the little > obstacles to her/his debian installation... Sorry. The free distribution does mean that you need to either w buy hardware supported by free software, or learn how to feed your non-free habit by yourself. We might make it easy for you to feed your non-free habit, which is why we have the non-free area of the archive. d-i already allows you to feed it your non-free junk. I think that is plenty support. > (googling the network card won't work, unless it works already, by the > way... > There are users with just on PC and no other network connection for a > 'sneaker net'. They have the recommended net-install of d-i, but their > card requires firmware. What now? As you stand, debian just won't > support them. You are basically telling them: buy and use a non-free OS > in order to download the firmware necessary to install a free OS. ) > >> So, I could not install this laptop over wifi. Now a big deal -- >> I installed it over a wired LAN, and I suppose I could have done >> sneakernet itself. I do not think that the hassle was worth sacrificing >> Debian's principles for. > > Yes, big deal: the wired LAN of my laptop is e100, and requires firmware > IIRC. Senakernet the non-free crap in. > One of the principles as I understand it is 'priorities for users'. Too > much of this discussion smells like 'SC #1 is more important than SC $4, > as long as we DDs know a way to install and configure our machines'. You conveneintly fail to read SC#5. That ius how we fulfil SC#4: we add it in non-free. We already have an installer that supports adding non-free junk during install, you can use that. > SC #4: "We will be guided by the needs of our users... We will place > their interests first in our priorities. " > > The primary interest of the user is to be able to *install* a functional > debian (without the requirement of downloading unoffical patches to the > installation media). > > Why should we give someone a d-i cd, if it is rather likely that it > won't work? Read the ability of the d-i to take in a second non-free media to install firmwares from? manoj -- I used to get high on life but lately I've built up a resistance. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]