Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
On 10/15/16, FaTony wrote: > What kind of games are you planning to run? > > Because this is very libre focused project it's an *ethically* focussed project of which it so happens, by way of the four freedoms being designed around the extremely rare and hard-to-understand *joint* combination of software development *and* ethical considerations, that libre software is a huge part *of* the project but it is not *the* focus of the project. now, if people want to *ignore* those ethical considerations they are entirely free to do so and to experience the consequences of doing so (which, if they piss on anything that is part of this project, interfering with it or bringing it into disrepute in any way, then to say that those consequences would be bad for them would be a massive understatement). > so I assume emulators of > proprietary hardware and proprietary games for that hardware out of the > question. they're not [out of the question]. they will not be able to receive an RYF Certificate, that's for sure, but that's nothing to do with EOMA68. if you recall a couple weeks ago i began writing up the specification to incorporate the circumstances under which proprietary software is acceptable, as well as outlining the [rather large] burden of responsibility that proprietary software vendors will be taking on as a result. if that proprietary software is installable by the end-user (over the internet) *after* the product ships, that burden is greatly reduced. if there isn't *any* choice *other* than proprietary software however, such that that proprietary software might as well already be on the device, i might however get a bit unhappy about that. it's still all forming, basically, but the fundamental underlying rule is: ethical considerations FIRST. stop causing people pain and distress just because they're buying technology devices. l. ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
El 15 de octubre de 2016 a las 7:53:40, FaTony (fat...@fatony.net) escribió: > What kind of games are you planning to run? > > Because this is very libre focused project so I assume emulators of > proprietary hardware and proprietary games for that hardware out of the > question. > My idea is to offer a completely libre console that anyone can improve it and anyone can do whatever he wants with it. My idea is that this freedom allows you to install what you want. For example, if you want, you can install a completely libre OS (like Parabola OS) or you can install a proprietary OS (like Windows, if there is a EOMA68 compatible in the future). On the other hand, my idea is to focus on a EOMA68-A20 with GNU/Linux OS (Debian perhaps?). Would be sent without any proprietary software. When you turn on it (first time), the OS will ask if you want to download the proprietary drivers for the GPU and if you want to activate the repository with proprietary software (such as proprietary games or emulators). I would also like to offer a EOMA68-A20 card with Parabola OS and other with Android OS. While we may not provide support for these cards (for lack of money and time). ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
Debian's approach of this isn't really ethical. Anyone has the freedom of install installing propitiatory software even non tech users. Including non-free software in the repository is insisting/proposing users, especially non tech ones, to give up their freedom for simplicity without understanding the importance of them and the technical problems that non free/libre software brings (a good example of that is the game modding community). Mainstreams users like you seem to refer to them are what makes software and hardware go in decadence. I don't say that they are directly concerned, but it is how their were treated like, that made them what they are now and ask the same bad products. If you continue to give them what they are made of the project will slowly become like them and only enforce the already bad circle. Their are already lots of free software games, seek the libre game wiki encyclopedia. https://libregamewiki.org/Main_Page Note: emulators can be free software but the roms/blobs shouldn’t be included, f-droid already does that. Le 15/10/2016 08:24, ryan a écrit : > Actually, I personally take a hybdrid approach to my libre software. I > focus on the important components being libre, but if some high-level > software isn't, I can live with that as long as I'm not dependent on it. > > > So with that in mind, I know I would play some emulators on there. Also, > if we just focus the EOMA68 projects on fully-libre usecases, we will > miss out on many mainstream users who are necessary if we want the > standard (or whatever revision its reached by then) to be at all > relevant in 20 years. I like the idea of 100% libre hardware and a 100% > libre software stack, but with easy options for the user to choose to > add non-free components if they wish (like the Debian non-free > repository being only a couple of clicks away) > > Thanks > > -Ryan > > > On 10/15/2016 12:52 AM, FaTony wrote: >> What kind of games are you planning to run? >> >> Because this is very libre focused project so I assume emulators of >> proprietary hardware and proprietary games for that hardware out of the >> question. >> >> GaCuest: >>> Hello everyone. >>> >>> I suppose many of you know the handheld games console project >>> based on EOMA68 (the provisional name is ZEOMA). >>> >>> The website (it is outdated (the images are also outdated), when the >>> project is more advanced I'll update) (thanks to Peter Bouda) is: >>> http://www.ubrew.it/ >>> >>> The features of the console are: >>> - 4.5 inch 480x854 IPS screen. >>> - Resistive touch panel. >>> - DPad + A B X Y buttons + R button + L button + 2 Analog triggers >>> + 2 Analog Joystick (with push button) + Start + Select + Home >>> + Vol +/- + 2 extra buttons. >>> - 4000 mAh battery. >>> - Stereo. >>> - MicroSD slot. >>> - USB 2.0 Host. >>> - MicroUSB (for charging). >>> - STM32F072 for controls. >>> - AR9271 WIFI. >>> >>> I have done a small block diagram you can see here: >>> http://george.the-petries.co.uk/shared-write-access/eoma/Block%20Diagram%20ZEOMA/Block%20Diagram%20Console%202.0.jpg >>> >>> >>> I have placed the datasheets of the components here: >>> http://george.the-petries.co.uk/shared-write-access/eoma/Datasheets%20ZEOMA/ >>> >>> >>> I have no prior experience designing schematics and PCB, but I will >>> try to do my best. If I have any questions, I will ask you. >>> >>> I will publish all the schematics and PCB under GPLv3+. >>> >>> If anyone have any suggestions or improvement, I appreciate it. >>> >>> Thanks to Luke for all his help. Also thanks to Alexander for allowing >>> us to store the files of the project in his server. >>> >>> ___ >>> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk >>> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook >>> Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk >>> >> >> >> ___ >> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk >> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook >> Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk > > > > > ___ > arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk > http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook > Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk > -- Note: veuillez s'il vous plaît utiliser GnuPg pour nos futures conversations https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/fr/ Plus d'info ici: http://www.bibmath.net/crypto/index.php?action=affiche&quoi=moderne/pgp Message envoyé avec GNU Icedove un fork de Thunderbird https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Icedove signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
On 10/15/16, mdn wrote: > Debian's approach of this isn't really ethical. they're doing the best that they believe they can do, but they _have_ been told. see joey hess's very public description of the Debian Charter as a "toxic document". i've spoken to the FSF about this: from what i gather, the changes required are actually very very simple: all they have to do is add in a simple popup message whenever someone clicks the "nonfree" section, issuing a warning to the end-user that the consequences of their actions are leading them into unethical territory. ... how simple would that be to add? the other parts (creating separate DNS names and different repositories for the nonfree sections) could be done transparently with HTTP rewrites and redirects (just like devuan seems to be doing) as an interim measure, then removed at some appropriate point after a couple of major releases. it's really, really not very hard, and we'd end up with Debian - one of the world's leading Software Libre OSes - being RYF Compliant. as it is, we have to fuck around forking tens of THOUSANDs of packages, with efforts to do so failing under the sheer weight of the task and the required resources. i really really wish the debian group would wake up, just a little bit. *sigh*. l. ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
Le 15/10/2016 16:40, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton a écrit : > On 10/15/16, mdn wrote: >> Debian's approach of this isn't really ethical. > > they're doing the best that they believe they can do, but they _have_ > been told. see joey hess's very public description of the Debian > Charter as a "toxic document". Tanks for the reference > > i've spoken to the FSF about this: from what i gather, the changes > required are actually very very simple: all they have to do is add in > a simple popup message whenever someone clicks the "nonfree" section, > issuing a warning to the end-user that the consequences of their > actions are leading them into unethical territory. > > ... how simple would that be to add? Not a all, but that was a rhetoric question. I am looking forward to make pedagogic help for basic users, I was one myself and I know that even a bit of more help (more that just a popup) isn’t that hard to help, it's just very time consuming. > > the other parts (creating separate DNS names and different > repositories for the nonfree sections) could be done transparently > with HTTP rewrites and redirects (just like devuan seems to be doing) > as an interim measure, then removed at some appropriate point after a > couple of major releases. > > it's really, really not very hard, and we'd end up with Debian - one > of the world's leading Software Libre OSes - being RYF Compliant. > > as it is, we have to fuck around forking tens of THOUSANDs of > packages, with efforts to do so failing under the sheer weight of the > task and the required resources. Agreed > > i really really wish the debian group would wake up, just a little bit. ((trolling) same thing with systemd I wish debian would wake up) Sorry I couldn't resist ^^ > > *sigh*. > > l. > > ___ > arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk > http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook > Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 03:40:10PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On 10/15/16, mdn wrote: > > Debian's approach of this isn't really ethical. > > they're doing the best that they believe they can do, but they _have_ > been told. see joey hess's very public description of the Debian > Charter as a "toxic document". > > i've spoken to the FSF about this: from what i gather, the changes > required are actually very very simple: all they have to do is add in > a simple popup message whenever someone clicks the "nonfree" section, > issuing a warning to the end-user that the consequences of their > actions are leading them into unethical territory. > Debian and the FSF have agreed to differ on this: Debian folk have problems with GFDL with invariant sections, for example. Ask John Sullivan what the FSF posiiton is. Non-free is NOT a part of Debian, nor is contrib - but they are provided as a covenience for users. It's also worth knowing that security updates for non-free are almost impossible. BUT ... If you've got a Broadcom chipset, for example, you may have no option but to use proprietary software. Most Intel wifi chips also require firmware - what are you going to do when that's emebedded in a new laptop / nettop ? They repostiories do have to be explicitly enabled: the question of whether you want to install non-free software is asked explicitly in the installer - so the notifications are there. Ironically, if wifi adapters / Ethernet cards still came with burnt-in firmware, Debian would be a fully free distribution (and it's worth remembering that Debian was endorsed and funded by the FSF for a while). If you want any architecture other than Intel / AMD as a primary supported architecture then your choice is prety much Debian from the mainstream distributions and Trisquel / GNewsense are forks which don't yet support all other architectures. So, if you want to do work to enable your project on a Cubietruck - you use Debian, probably. Andy C NOT SPEAKING FOR DEBIAN PROJECT AS A WHOLE :) > ... how simple would that be to add? > > the other parts (creating separate DNS names and different > repositories for the nonfree sections) could be done transparently > with HTTP rewrites and redirects (just like devuan seems to be doing) > as an interim measure, then removed at some appropriate point after a > couple of major releases. > > it's really, really not very hard, and we'd end up with Debian - one > of the world's leading Software Libre OSes - being RYF Compliant. > > as it is, we have to fuck around forking tens of THOUSANDs of > packages, with efforts to do so failing under the sheer weight of the > task and the required resources. > > i really really wish the debian group would wake up, just a little bit. > > *sigh*. > > l. > > ___ > arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk > http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook > Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
El 15 de octubre de 2016 a las 16:28:55, mdn (bernardl...@openmailbox.org) escribió: > Debian's approach of this isn't really ethical. > Anyone has the freedom of install installing propitiatory software even > non tech users. > > Including non-free software in the repository is insisting/proposing > users, especially non tech ones, to give up their freedom for simplicity > without understanding the importance of them and the technical problems > that non free/libre software brings (a good example of that is the game > modding community). > > Mainstreams users like you seem to refer to them are what makes software > and hardware go in decadence. > I don't say that they are directly concerned, but it is how their were > treated like, that made them what they are now and ask the same bad > products. > > If you continue to give them what they are made of the project will > slowly become like them and only enforce the already bad circle. > I understand you say. I also prefer libre games, but the quality of these games are usually low (projects are very small and without money, I understand it and I'm not criticizing that games). My idea is similar to the idea of Luke, when you go to download a proprietary game, you will be warned that it is a proprietary game and its consequences. In my opinion, the problem of libre software is not the existence of proprietary software. The problem is that developers barely get economic benefits doing libre software. Maybe we should think about how developers can make profits doing libre software. ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
A game console based on emulators and ports can be really interesting even before adding non-free software. For starters, you may be able to find public domain or even free software ROM for most of the emulators, and they could even be shipped with the device operating system as part of the free software included! Users looking for a device to play classic games will of course download what they want, but that base set of games will be there, pre-installed, free, and legal. [PD Roms](http://pdroms.de/) [Community Software]( https://archive.org/details/open_source_software) RetroPie has an interesting project they call [Ports](https://github.com/ retropie/RetroPie-Setup/wiki/Ports). Some of the engines and games they are porting are free software. Lastly, it could be really helpful to provide a platform target for free software games developers. I'd guess that a device that can run/test games written in [Godot](https://godotengine.org/), , or Pygame would be rather attractive. -- Eric Duhamel http://www.noxbanners.net/ ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
A game console based on emulators and ports can be really interesting even before adding non-free software. For starters, you may be able to find public domain or even free software ROM for most of the emulators, and they could even be shipped with the device operating system as part of the free software included! Users looking for a device to play classic games will of course download what they want, but that base set of games will be there, pre-installed, free, and legal. It would take some searching and verification, but even a handful of free ROM would be good. [PD Roms](http://pdroms.de/) [Community Software]( https://archive.org/details/open_source_software) RetroPie has an interesting project they call [Ports](https://github.com/retropie/RetroPie-Setup/wiki/Ports). Some of the engines and games they are porting are free software. Lastly, it could be really helpful to provide a platform target for free software games developers. I'd guess that a device that can run/test games written in [Godot](https://godotengine.org/), [Löve](https://love2d.org/), or [Pygame](http://www.pygame.org/) would be rather attractive. -- Eric Duhamel http://www.noxbanners.net/ -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
A game console based on emulators and ports can be really interesting even before adding non-free software. For starters, you may be able to find public domain or even free software ROM for most of the emulators, and they could even be shipped with the device operating system as part of the free software included! Users looking for a device to play classic games will of course download what they want, but that base set of games will be there, pre-installed, free, and legal. It would take some searching and verification, but even a handful of free ROM would be good. [PD Roms](http://pdroms.de/) [Community Software]( https://archive.org/details/open_source_software) RetroPie has an interesting project they call [Ports](https://github.com/retropie/RetroPie-Setup/wiki/Ports). Some of the engines and games they are porting are free software. Lastly, it could be really helpful to provide a platform target for free software games developers. I'd guess that a device that can run/test games written in [Godot](https://godotengine.org/), [Löve](https://love2d.org/), or [Pygame](http://www.pygame.org/) would be rather attractive. -- Eric Duhamel http://www.noxbanners.net/___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
El 15 de octubre de 2016 a las 20:33:12, Eric Duhamel (ericxd...@gmail.com) escribió: > A game console based on emulators and ports can be really interesting even > before adding > non-free software. > > For starters, you may be able to find public domain or even free software ROM > for most of > the emulators, and they could even be shipped with the device operating > system as part > of the free software included! Users looking for a device to play classic > games will of > course download what they want, but that base set of games will be there, > pre-installed, > free, and legal. It would take some searching and verification, but even a > handful of > free ROM would be good. [PD Roms](http://pdroms.de/) [Community Software]( > https://archive.org/details/open_source_software) > > RetroPie has an interesting project they call > [Ports](https://github.com/retropie/RetroPie-Setup/wiki/Ports). > Some of the engines and games they are porting are free software. > > Lastly, it could be really helpful to provide a platform target for free > software games > developers. I'd guess that a device that can run/test games written in > [Godot](https://godotengine.org/), > [Löve](https://love2d.org/), or [Pygame](http://www.pygame.org/) would be > rather > attractive. Yes, our idea is to support all that. I still keep my GP32 and GP2X, I'm a fan of retro games and emulators. As I said above, it may be interesting to launch a EOMA68-A20 completely libre with this type of software. Without proprietary drivers for the GPU to be completely free. Thanks for your comments. ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
[Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
they're doing the best that they believe they can do, but they _have_
been told. see joey hess's very public description of the Debian
Charter as a "toxic document".
I've seen https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00174.html where
Hess makes this statement but I haven't seen anything written by Hess
clearly explaining why the Debian Constitution is "toxic".
Where would I find something written by Hess clearly explaining why the
Debian Constitution is "toxic"?
i've spoken to the FSF about this: from what i gather, the changes
required are actually very very simple: all they have to do is add in
a simple popup message whenever someone clicks the "nonfree" section,
issuing a warning to the end-user that the consequences of their
actions are leading them into unethical territory.
... how simple would that be to add?
It's entirely possible something has changed and I am not aware of relevant
updates on this (I don't doubt you're in touch with them far more than I
am). Please do reply to the list with updates to this situation.
But according to published documents I point to below, a popup might be
quite simple to add but insufficient to allow Debian GNU/Linux to appear on
the list of FSF Free System Distributions. I'll explain why I believe this
to be true.
In https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html we find the following
objection, "Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software.
According to the project, this software is "not part of the Debian system,"
but the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and
people can readily find these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online
package database and its wiki".
John Sullivan went into more detail on the FSF's objection at Debconf2015:
So, in Debian's case, the lack of endorsement from us is primarily
because of the relationship between official Debian and unofficial
Debian -- the 'non-free' and 'contrib' repositories. And that
relationship to us seems too close for our comfort. There are spots in
the Debian infrastructure where those sections even though technically
separate are integrated very closely with main. So, for example, in
package searching, in 'recommends' and 'suggests' fields within packages
that are displayed to users. So even though, in Debian, we have an idea
that these are separate that's not always as clear to users on the
outside and they can end up being sometimes inadvertently or sometimes
just led to install nonfree components on top of the official
distribution.
Source:
http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2015/debconf15/Debian_and_the_FSF_Ending_disagreements_by_solving_problems_at_the_source.webm
(12m18s)
I believe the FSF is right to point out Debian's cognitive dissonance.
Debian gets to:
- host repos containing nonfree software,
- include UI with pointers to said repos in the installed repo list,
- list packages from the nonfree repos as alternatives to free software
packages,
- and also claim that these repos are somehow "not part of the Debian system"?
I too believe that Debian is hosting nonfree software and integrating
nonfree software with free software and this is indistinguishable from what
other distros not listed do (such as Ubuntu's GNU/Linux).
If Debian wanted the FSF's approval Debian could remove the nonfree and
contrib repos from Debian entirely, and remove mentions of packages from
these repos from the free packages. Any packages one installs from Debian's
repos post-installation would have the same restrictions too (thus
addressing what Sullivan mentioned immediately after the above quote).
It was good of Debian to move the nonfree blobs to the nonfree and/or
contrib repos in Debian 6.0 ("squeeze") in February 2011 but the OS
installer makes the same kinds of recommendations the FSF objects to. I
understand the consequences for users looking to most conveniently install
Debian GNU/Linux plus whatever nonfree software to let the OS run on their
hardware. But I don't see a popup fixing this. I see this as another
convenience vs. software freedom tradeoff (wherein security is certainly on
the side of software freedom too).
Repo redirects to sets of packages that only mention free software packages
with no references to nonfree software could work but that still involves
providing work for thousands of packages, as you say.
___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 04:47:05PM -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
> I've seen https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00174.html where
> Hess makes this statement but I haven't seen anything written by Hess
> clearly explaining why the Debian Constitution is "toxic".
>
> > i've spoken to the FSF about this: from what i gather, the changes
> >required are actually very very simple: all they have to do is add in
> >a simple popup message whenever someone clicks the "nonfree" section,
> >issuing a warning to the end-user that the consequences of their
> >actions are leading them into unethical territory.
> >
> > ... how simple would that be to add?
>
Pick up the Debian netinst iso / the first Debian CD / the first Debian DVD.
You can install an entirely free system with no non-free components.
You can also install Debian without taking account of any recommends.
On (both) the Thinkpads in front of me, that would result in non-working wifi
but everything else would work. I could plug in one of a few wifi dongles
and have a fully free Debian.
On the Intel desktop machine away behind me I couldn't get hardware acceleration
on the Nvidia card - I could care less.
On a Cubietruck / Pine64 / Chip / Raspberry Pi / Pi3 - I couldn't get
functionality
without non-free which I could get with Allwinner / Broadcom firmware. Debian
doesn't supply "non-free" components: in each case you're using firmware
distributed
with the hardware. Without non-free firmware / forked kernels, all of the ARM
hardware
we have is pretty much unusable. I'm hopeful that you can prove differently
Luke.
> But according to published documents I point to below, a popup might be
> quite simple to add but insufficient to allow Debian GNU/Linux to appear on
> the list of FSF Free System Distributions. I'll explain why I believe this
> to be true.
>
> In https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html we find the following
> objection, "Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According
> to the project, this software is "not part of the Debian system," but the
> repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can
> readily find these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package
> database and its wiki".
>
> John Sullivan went into more detail on the FSF's objection at Debconf2015:
>
> >So, in Debian's case, the lack of endorsement from us is primarily
> >because of the relationship between official Debian and unofficial
> >Debian -- the 'non-free' and 'contrib' repositories. And that
> >relationship to us seems too close for our comfort. There are spots in
> >the Debian infrastructure where those sections even though technically
> >separate are integrated very closely with main. So, for example, in
> >package searching, in 'recommends' and 'suggests' fields within packages
> >that are displayed to users. So even though, in Debian, we have an idea
> >that these are separate that's not always as clear to users on the
> >outside and they can end up being sometimes inadvertently or sometimes
> >just led to install nonfree components on top of the official
> >distribution.
>
> Source:
> http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2015/debconf15/Debian_and_the_FSF_Ending_disagreements_by_solving_problems_at_the_source.webm
> (12m18s)
>
Where would you suggest that Debian point users with unusable hardware - note
(_users_ not developers) ?
It's very clear on the website and in documentation back to 1994
www.debian.org/CD/netinst - no mention of non-free
https://www.debian.org/CD/faq#official - unofficial CDs may contain additional
hardware drivers, or additional software packages not part of the archive.
> I believe the FSF is right to point out Debian's cognitive dissonance.
> Debian gets to:
>
> - host repos containing nonfree software,
> - include UI with pointers to said repos in the installed repo list,
> - list packages from the nonfree repos as alternatives to free software
> packages,
> - and also claim that these repos are somehow "not part of the Debian system"?
>
> I too believe that Debian is hosting nonfree software and integrating
> nonfree software with free software and this is indistinguishable from what
> other distros not listed do (such as Ubuntu's GNU/Linux).
>
> If Debian wanted the FSF's approval Debian could remove the nonfree and
> contrib repos from Debian entirely, and remove mentions of packages from
> these repos from the free packages. Any packages one installs from Debian's
> repos post-installation would have the same restrictions too (thus
> addressing what Sullivan mentioned immediately after the above quote).
>
> It was good of Debian to move the nonfree blobs to the nonfree and/or
> contrib repos in Debian 6.0 ("squeeze") in February 2011 but the OS
> installer makes the same kinds of recommendations the FSF objects to. I
> understand the consequences for users looking to most convenientl
Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list
Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: You can install an entirely free system with no non-free components. You can also install Debian without taking account of any recommends. But the recommends and suggests fields are still listing nonfree software, which was the FSF's issue. Not accepting the suggestions or recommendations doesn't address the issue the FSF raised in Sullivan's DebConf talk. Where would you suggest that Debian point users with unusable hardware - note (_users_ not developers) ? Developers are users too. But where I would point them doesn't matter. These are the FSF's requirements we're talking about. Although I don't speak for the FSF, I believe they'd point any computer user to the FSF's "Respects Your Freedom" hardware (such as what the FSF itself uses) and I believe they'd point out that sometimes freedom requires a sacrifice (as rms points out in all of his talks going back many years). One might not be able to use just any hardware with a Debian GNU/Linux system that satisfies the FSF's recommended distro list. Genuinely: run through a Debian install from the netinst / CDs. Please point out to me where non-free software will be installed without an explicit action to include nonfree software on the part of the person installing. The screen mentioning non-free mentions that hardware drivers that may be required may be non-free but you have to opt in to install them. Which suggests the nonfree software integration the FSF spoke of is in there. After all, like you just said, if it's an opt-in away to get the nonfree software the nonfree repos are listed but not enabled until one answers "yes" to activate the nonfree repos Debian hosts. If this isn't the case, and the FSF's requests are being met it's a simple matter for someone from Debian to submit the latest Debian GNU/Linux for a proper review and possible inclusion on the list. ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list
"J.B. Nicholson" writes: > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> they're doing the best that they believe they can do, but they _have_ >> been told. see joey hess's very public description of the Debian >> Charter as a "toxic document". > > I've seen https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00174.html where > Hess makes this statement but I haven't seen anything written by Hess > clearly explaining why the Debian Constitution is "toxic". > > Where would I find something written by Hess clearly explaining why the > Debian Constitution is "toxic"? Yes, it was the Debian Constitution he was referring to. I'm not really sure why this is relevant to the discussion of free software, but I suspect that Luke is conflating it with the Social Contract, and calling it "Debian Charter" which is ... not a thing. I think Joey was saying that the constitutions existence has resulted in some people having endless discussions about the internal structures of Debian, rather than getting on with something useful instead. It has absolutely nothing to do with what Luke seems to be suggesting. As for the non-free thing and the FSF -- changing things would require Debian to consider that to be a good idea, which was certainly not the case in 2004: https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 I doubt that opinion has changed. Claiming that is related to being unethical, rather than a result of people having differing proprieties, strikes me as rather childish. On this laptop, I note that I have 4 packages installed from "non-free". One is firmware-iwlwifi, and the other 3 are GFDL licensed docs with invariant sections. I suppose I could buy another wifi card (perhaps one with the same chipset, with the same firmware, in a ROM?). Then I could chuck the old card into landfill for an "ethical" outcome. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
Hello everyone! If anyone if interested, I’ve updated the block diagram with new changes: http://george.the-petries.co.uk/shared-write-access/eoma/Block%20Diagram%20ZEOMA/Block%20Diagram%20Console%202.1.png Any suggestions/corrections are appreciated. Thanks! ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list
Of course, you can install a fully free Debian system, but 1 single dialog in setup wizard is a bit too little. I would rather have the tickbox to install non-free repos somewhere deep in preferences menu and I would certainly not host them on the debian.org domain. Ideally, you would only add non-free repo by manually editing sources.list. Andrew M.A. Cater: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 04:47:05PM -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote: >> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> >> I've seen https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00174.html where >> Hess makes this statement but I haven't seen anything written by Hess >> clearly explaining why the Debian Constitution is "toxic". >> >>> i've spoken to the FSF about this: from what i gather, the changes >>> required are actually very very simple: all they have to do is add in >>> a simple popup message whenever someone clicks the "nonfree" section, >>> issuing a warning to the end-user that the consequences of their >>> actions are leading them into unethical territory. >>> >>> ... how simple would that be to add? >> > > Pick up the Debian netinst iso / the first Debian CD / the first Debian DVD. > > You can install an entirely free system with no non-free components. > > You can also install Debian without taking account of any recommends. > > On (both) the Thinkpads in front of me, that would result in non-working wifi > but everything else would work. I could plug in one of a few wifi dongles > and have a fully free Debian. > > On the Intel desktop machine away behind me I couldn't get hardware > acceleration > on the Nvidia card - I could care less. > > On a Cubietruck / Pine64 / Chip / Raspberry Pi / Pi3 - I couldn't get > functionality > without non-free which I could get with Allwinner / Broadcom firmware. Debian > doesn't supply "non-free" components: in each case you're using firmware > distributed > with the hardware. Without non-free firmware / forked kernels, all of the ARM > hardware > we have is pretty much unusable. I'm hopeful that you can prove differently > Luke. > >> But according to published documents I point to below, a popup might be >> quite simple to add but insufficient to allow Debian GNU/Linux to appear on >> the list of FSF Free System Distributions. I'll explain why I believe this >> to be true. >> >> In https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html we find the following >> objection, "Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According >> to the project, this software is "not part of the Debian system," but the >> repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can >> readily find these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package >> database and its wiki". >> >> John Sullivan went into more detail on the FSF's objection at Debconf2015: >> >>> So, in Debian's case, the lack of endorsement from us is primarily >>> because of the relationship between official Debian and unofficial >>> Debian -- the 'non-free' and 'contrib' repositories. And that >>> relationship to us seems too close for our comfort. There are spots in >>> the Debian infrastructure where those sections even though technically >>> separate are integrated very closely with main. So, for example, in >>> package searching, in 'recommends' and 'suggests' fields within packages >>> that are displayed to users. So even though, in Debian, we have an idea >>> that these are separate that's not always as clear to users on the >>> outside and they can end up being sometimes inadvertently or sometimes >>> just led to install nonfree components on top of the official >>> distribution. >> >> Source: >> http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2015/debconf15/Debian_and_the_FSF_Ending_disagreements_by_solving_problems_at_the_source.webm >> (12m18s) >> > > Where would you suggest that Debian point users with unusable hardware - note > (_users_ not developers) ? > > It's very clear on the website and in documentation back to 1994 > > www.debian.org/CD/netinst - no mention of non-free > > https://www.debian.org/CD/faq#official - unofficial CDs may contain > additional hardware drivers, or additional software packages not part of the > archive. > > >> I believe the FSF is right to point out Debian's cognitive dissonance. >> Debian gets to: >> >> - host repos containing nonfree software, >> - include UI with pointers to said repos in the installed repo list, >> - list packages from the nonfree repos as alternatives to free software >> packages, >> - and also claim that these repos are somehow "not part of the Debian >> system"? >> >> I too believe that Debian is hosting nonfree software and integrating >> nonfree software with free software and this is indistinguishable from what >> other distros not listed do (such as Ubuntu's GNU/Linux). >> >> If Debian wanted the FSF's approval Debian could remove the nonfree and >> contrib repos from Debian entirely, and remove mentions of packages from >> these re
Re: [Arm-netbook] Block Diagram - ZEOMA - Handheld Games Console
On 10/15/2016 06:21 PM, GaCuest wrote: > Hello everyone! > > If anyone if interested, I’ve updated the block diagram with new > changes: > http://george.the-petries.co.uk/shared-write-access/eoma/Block%20Diagram%20ZEOMA/Block%20Diagram%20Console%202.1.png > > Any suggestions/corrections are appreciated. Thanks! Do you have a chip picked out to provide 5V boost to the EOMA card yet? The AXP209 does not appear to provide it. My plan for handheld computer was to use a TI brand LiPo charging IC and 5V boost. The AXP209 seems like a better idea than the TI charging solution since it has configurable regulator outputs and lower cost. Also, I see you are not using SSD2828 for RGB to MIPI conversion anymore. This week I finished up a preliminary schematic for a SSD2828 testing/breakout board. I briefly started the layout and began to have second thoughts. It seems like too much work to incorporate it. I'm now looking for ~4 inch RGB LCD's instead. ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list
On 2016-10-15 16:47 -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > I too believe that Debian is hosting nonfree software and integrating > nonfree software with free software and this is indistinguishable from what > other distros not listed do (such as Ubuntu's GNU/Linux). There is a difference: Ubuntu will install non-free software (firmware needed to make hardware work, and binary drivers) by default. Debian will not do so unless the user adds the non-free repository (SFAIK). > If Debian wanted the FSF's approval Debian could remove the nonfree and > contrib repos from Debian entirely, and remove mentions of packages from > these repos from the free packages. They (we) could. Ironically a large fraction of the packages in non-free are FSF documentation. Most of the rest is firmware blobs (usually running on a different CPU from your main one). Debian has taken the view for many years now that having this stuff available relatively painlessly is the right balance between usability and freedom. There have been suggestions made about putting firmware in a different categary, as that's the main reason people enable non-free, and once enabled you get all of it available, not just the one or two bits you needed, and it would be good if it was less all-or-nothing. Not sure where those changes got to. I have 11 non-free packages. 5 of them are FSF documentation (gcc x2, make, cpio, emacs). 4 others are firmware for this thinkpad (bluetooth and wifi). In fact I even made and uploaded a non-free package: cpio-doc as the cpio docs were not available on Debian without someone doing that (have you tried using cpio without the docs? - it's hard going). The others are tools installed for interacting with other people, where free alternatives do not exist: unrar, nautilus-dropbox. None of that is particularly unethical, except maybe the last two packages, but whilst I am a big supporter of free software (that's why I'm on this list), I think it's OK that Debian manages this stuff properly for when one needs it: it's much better than having to go find random binaries on line to install, for example. I've just installed unrar-free, and removed nautilus-dropbox, as these days one can use some non-free software online to do the same job, when tiresome people send you things via that service. That's more 'FSF pure', but I don't think it really makes much ethical difference: Dropbox is proprietary however you access it. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list
On 10/15/16, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > It's entirely possible something has changed and I am not aware of relevant > updates on this (I don't doubt you're in touch with them far more than I > am). Please do reply to the list with updates to this situation. i'm not - they're extremely limited on resources and time, so i keep communication to a minimum. > In https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html we find the following > objection, "Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. > According to the project, this software is "not part of the Debian system," > but the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and > people can readily find these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online > package database and its wiki". ... which is why i proposed an HTTP-redirect-and-rewrite style split that would appear seamless and transparent (appearing to be a "single site") for many years. the wiki however would be a problem that would need careful and comprehensive review... but if steps are never taken, even small ones, zero progress will ever be made. l. ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list
On 10/16/16, Wookey wrote: > On 2016-10-15 16:47 -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > >> I too believe that Debian is hosting nonfree software and integrating >> nonfree software with free software and this is indistinguishable from >> what >> other distros not listed do (such as Ubuntu's GNU/Linux). > > There is a difference: Ubuntu will install non-free software (firmware > needed to make hardware work, and binary drivers) by default. Debian > will not do so unless the user adds the non-free repository (SFAIK). appreciated you pointing out the distinction / differenec, wookey. i only became aware of the FSF's position from my conversations with josh gay, some eight or so months ago. i've mentioned them on here before: you may have missed them (i'm aware you're a lurker) so am happy to repeat them in this context. the FSF figures that technically-competent people can look after themselves. "technically-competent" is defined as loosely fitting with "someone who has the capacity to take the initiative to seek out help online or from friends, where such help requires *explicit* following (and trust of) *specific* instructions, step-by-step without deviation or elaboration, usually at the command-line". the FSF's position there covers *everyone else*, who, by definition, cannot trust or be trusted to follow explicit written or verbal instructions, cannot cope with a command-line prompt, cannot comprehend the consequences of their actions, does not understand or read "terms and conditions" and so on. these are the people whom the FSF's position protects (from themselves) - they are the people who are extremely likely to go *click* synaptics package manager what's that it's not enabled *click* i wonder what nonfree is don't understand don't care oh well let's enable it anyway *click* oh look there's these extra packages i wonder what they do *click* and now they've opened up a means to compromise their computer and their privacy without *ever* encountering a warning that that was even possible. *that's* what the FSF objects to about debian. it's not that the packages *are* separate, it's that it's *too easy* to install them without any warning of any kind, whatsoever. we as technical people just go in and edit /etc/apt/sources.list and add "nonfree" to the end of the appropriate deb line. *non-technical* people run synaptics and its ilke, where there's a GUI-based no-warnings-whatsoever option *right there* in the menus / dialogs, to enable non-free repositories. anyway. thank you for making me aware that FSF documentation is qualified as non-free, that really made my day. l. ___ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
