Re: Making Debian available - Testing iso download
Am 05.02.21 um 18:50 schrieb Geert Stappers: > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 04:21:42PM +, Paul Sutton wrote: >> Would it be possible to make it easier to find the ISO for the next release > It is work in progress and the process is called "Doing a release". The reply was kind of funny but please allow me to support Paul's request. And close to our next release, I see an extra value since attracting more people to our testing release will attract valuable eyeballs to spot issues that the typical developer my be more likely to miss. Best, Steffen
Re: Making Debian available - Testing iso download
On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 04:21:42PM +, Paul Sutton wrote: > Would it be possible to make it easier to find the ISO for the next release It is work in progress and the process is called "Doing a release".
Re: Making Debian available
Le samedi 23 janvier 2021 à 21:22:02+0100, Geert Stappers a écrit : > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 04:30:00PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Le samedi 23 janvier 2021 à 16:23:47+0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > > > On Jan 23, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > > > > > While I appreciate your point, and agree with the rationale behind it > > > > (having something that works for very recent hardware would be good), I > > > This is not about "very recent" hardware, it is really about "most > > > hardware". > > > > > > > personally find the way you express it rude for those whose principle > > > > are on the side of sticking to the philosophy of the project, which is > > > > to provide Free Software. > > > I do identify as somebody sticking to the philosophy of the project, > > > which is to provide Free Software, as it was understood when I joined > > > Debian 24 years ago. > > > > > > I still believe that advertising CD images which do not work for the > > > vast majority of our users is self-inflicted harm which does not help > > > anybody. > > > > I understand. > > We all understand it. Okay, most of us understand it. > > > > But could you maybe consider telling it in a way that doesn't make us > > look like we want to have a gap between our own members on each and > > every topic please? > > Requests on how to tell about a gap, will NOT close that gap. The main idea is not to antagonize people because they have different views. A gap in opinions is not something to be concerned about. It occurs regularly and is part of what makes Debian a technically excellent project. A gap in the community is womething that adds friction, confrontation, and is in my opinion not good for the project. How we say things always matter. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available - patch for webwml
On 1/29/21 1:44 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi Holger, On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:53:54AM +0100, Holger Wansing wrote: FYI: a patch has been applied in the meantime, adding such hint to nearly all d.o pages, which have links to download images [eg] www.debian.org/distrib/ to make users aware of those images. very cool, thank you very much! I'm still a bit sad we call the non-free images "unofficial" instead of "non-free", but hey, todays presentation is much better than last months already! IOW: I think we should call our non-free images our official non-free images. But still, yay progress! anecdotally, i installed buster on my wife's 13 year old i686 laptop yesterday morning (trying to refurbish it as a home-schooling device). the hardware is obviously pretty old (no x86_64!), but at least that made me hope that the wifi card might work out of the box. being fully aware of this thread (and just to be on the safe side), i checked how easy it was to find a i386 netinstaller images with non-free firmware. i'm sad to say that even though there has been obvious progress on the homepage¹, i failed. to be fair, i did find i386 images including non-free, but apparently only "full installation" ISOs, that (i suspected) wouldn't fit on my already crammed USB-stick. (i've been installing Debian since 1998 or so, and I don't think I ever used anything but the netinstaller. i'd like to keep it that way) of course, once i started the installer, it turned out that non-free firmware was indeed needed for the iwlwifi. so i copied one of the two mentioned firmware files (the other one was missing, so i assumed that the two were just different versions) from my own laptop (running sid) into a firmware/ directory on the USB stick, and started a-new. this time i was not prompted to insert a disk with the missing firmware (so providing the missing firmware was obviously pretty easy), only to find that i still could not connect to my WPA2-protected WiFi. so i just grabbed an old network cable from my bag of stuff, connected my own laptop to the old one, setup internet sharing, and from then it went kind of smoothly (apart from losing connection every other time, so it took a couple of attempts until the base system had been downloaded; but that might be due to the cable, or the rusty eth connector). after a successful installation i enabled non-free, grabbed the firmware-iwlwifi package, and since then everything seems to work splendidly (module that fan, that is making weird noises). fdmsrsa IOhannes ¹ note: i think "the page" (https://get.d.o) changed again since yesterday, and i now have been able to locate i386-netinstall+non-free images (although only after searching the page for "firmware" and then go daringly 3 more appalling pages (that reminded me fondly of ftp-directories and FAQs of yore) OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: -1 (Re: Making Debian available)
Paul wrote: > >During install, the installer asks if you have a disk with drivers on >for this closed hardware, I don't know what it wants at this point. > >If we could insert a 2nd usb disk, or anything with the correct drivers >on, it may help. Argh. Pet peeve. It asks for a disk with *firmware* on it, not *drivers*. Please stop confusing the two. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane
Re: Making Debian available, non-free promotor
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 01:38:24PM +0100, Ansgar wrote: > Yao Wei writes: > >> We encourage you to get devices that respects your freedom. > > Should this message also be shown when non-free firmware is preinstalled > in the system for educational purposes? > > Or do devices that have pre-installed non-free firmware respect the > user's freedom? As long as the users doesn't look and doesn't hear > about it, it's not there after all (two-wise-monkey-free / FSF-free?). > The best example probably are TiVo devices which don't have > user-upgradable firmware and thus should be called "freedom respecting" > ;-) > > We could also recommend users to just install Debian in a VM which > abstracts away the hardware, e.g., in a VM under Windows. This also > respects user freedom in the same sense as above as Windows is usually > preinstalled. (And AFAIU on modern systems Debian will usually run in > some partition anyway and not have full hardware access, so it already > runs in a "VM" of sorts.) > It is to describe the DFSG-freedom we value. I know that having upgradable non-free firmware is better than having non-upgradable firmware in case if there's vulnerability we need to address. If we find it not suitable, we can remove the text if that is going to be implemented. Of course it is easier to use Debian inside VM, but that is not the situation we would like to address. > iwlwifi does work fine with just free software just like hard disks and > similar? This listing is to list the packages that the user needs to download into the flash drive. In my case, iwlwifi requires additional firmware so I picked it as an example. And, the reason that I am picking networking, is that when system is installed with networking, the user can then download packages for other devices that require non-free packages to work. Usability wise, the message on the non-free firmware loading in debian-installer is not prominent enough, that people needs to discover it through manual. (This is also the case of the behavior in d-i that it installs sudo when root password is empty.) I would imagine that people just download ISO, install, and they would consult search engines for the problems they encounter, without realizing we have such function built into our installer. Thanks, Yao Wei signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available - patch for webwml
Hi Holger, On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:53:54AM +0100, Holger Wansing wrote: > FYI: a patch has been applied in the meantime, adding such hint to nearly all > d.o pages, which have links to download images [eg] > www.debian.org/distrib/ > to make users aware of those images. very cool, thank you very much! I'm still a bit sad we call the non-free images "unofficial" instead of "non-free", but hey, todays presentation is much better than last months already! IOW: I think we should call our non-free images our official non-free images. But still, yay progress! -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C ⠈⠳⣄ "Climate change" is an euphenism. "Global warming" as well. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available, non-free promotor
Yao Wei writes: > At then, we can let users download the missing drivers from the > generated webpage, like the following: > >> Additional packages for the network interface >> == >> >> As Debian is the universal operating system, we consider both users >> and free software important. However, the network device of the >> computer requires firmware that is not available in the installation >> media, because these are considered non-free according to our >> guideline. >> >> We encourage you to get devices that respects your freedom. Should this message also be shown when non-free firmware is preinstalled in the system for educational purposes? Or do devices that have pre-installed non-free firmware respect the user's freedom? As long as the users doesn't look and doesn't hear about it, it's not there after all (two-wise-monkey-free / FSF-free?). The best example probably are TiVo devices which don't have user-upgradable firmware and thus should be called "freedom respecting" ;-) We could also recommend users to just install Debian in a VM which abstracts away the hardware, e.g., in a VM under Windows. This also respects user freedom in the same sense as above as Windows is usually preinstalled. (And AFAIU on modern systems Debian will usually run in some partition anyway and not have full hardware access, so it already runs in a "VM" of sorts.) >> Meanwhile, you can either try another device that's known good using >> only free software, or download the .deb package(s) linked below and >> put into the same place this file resides: >> >> --- >> >> firmware-iwlwifi >> - for: Network Controller: Intel Corporation Wireless 8265 / 8275 >> - https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/firmware-iwlwifi iwlwifi does work fine with just free software just like hard disks and similar? Ansgar
Re: Making Debian available, non-free promotor
Hi, Paul Sutton wrote: > > > On 29/01/2021 03:23, Yao Wei wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could there be the way that, with installer unable to connect to the > > internet, it detects the list of missing blobs, and generate a webpage > > in the thumb drive, and let user plug in another flash drive to download > > them. > > I agree with this idea, it would be really helpful, in fact the step in > the installer that asks for a driver disk could perhaps be removed, So > in terms of extra steps remove one, add this. Again: a mechanism doing exactly this is already there, and it's documented here: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch06s04.en.html -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Re: Making Debian available, non-free promotor
On 29/01/2021 03:23, Yao Wei wrote: Hi, Could there be the way that, with installer unable to connect to the internet, it detects the list of missing blobs, and generate a webpage in the thumb drive, and let user plug in another flash drive to download them. I agree with this idea, it would be really helpful, in fact the step in the installer that asks for a driver disk could perhaps be removed, So in terms of extra steps remove one, add this. Perhaps however as there is also an automated install / unintended install option this could be part of that too so subsequent installs could pull in the extra drivers once downloaded. Paul At then, we can let users download the missing drivers from the generated webpage, like the following: Additional packages for the network interface == As Debian is the universal operating system, we consider both users and free software important. However, the network device of the computer requires firmware that is not available in the installation media, because these are considered non-free according to our guideline. We encourage you to get devices that respects your freedom. Meanwhile, you can either try another device that's known good using only free software, or download the .deb package(s) linked below and put into the same place this file resides: --- firmware-iwlwifi - for: Network Controller: Intel Corporation Wireless 8265 / 8275 - https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/firmware-iwlwifi I realize that it is an additional step that may stop users from using Debian. But if we do not want to lower the priority of free software in favor to the user, we have to increase the usability for people with non-free devices in DFSG-only realm. Just 2 cents, Yao Wei -- Paul Sutton https://personaljournal.ca/paulsutton/ OpenPGP: 4350 91C4 C8FB 681B 23A6 7944 8EA9 1B51 E27E 3D99 Fosdem 2021 6th-7th Feb 2021 : https://fosdem.org/2021 LibrePlanet 2021 - March 20th - 21st - https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Main_Page OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Making Debian available, non-free promotor
Hi, Could there be the way that, with installer unable to connect to the internet, it detects the list of missing blobs, and generate a webpage in the thumb drive, and let user plug in another flash drive to download them. At then, we can let users download the missing drivers from the generated webpage, like the following: > Additional packages for the network interface > == > > As Debian is the universal operating system, we consider both users > and free software important. However, the network device of the > computer requires firmware that is not available in the installation > media, because these are considered non-free according to our > guideline. > > We encourage you to get devices that respects your freedom. > > Meanwhile, you can either try another device that's known good using > only free software, or download the .deb package(s) linked below and > put into the same place this file resides: > > --- > > firmware-iwlwifi > - for: Network Controller: Intel Corporation Wireless 8265 / 8275 > - https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/firmware-iwlwifi I realize that it is an additional step that may stop users from using Debian. But if we do not want to lower the priority of free software in favor to the user, we have to increase the usability for people with non-free devices in DFSG-only realm. Just 2 cents, Yao Wei signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available, non-free promotor
On Jan 28, "Daniel S." wrote: > This image does not provide unfree WiFi firmware. It is not just about Wi-Fi but also audio, video and wired Ethernet. > This gives visibility to the actual problem and the only true solution. There is really no reason to believe that, even with significant funding, it will be possible in the next dacade to develop free firmwares for a non-trivial number of adapters. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available - patch for webwml
Hi, Holger Wansing wrote: > > debian-www team: what do you think about adding some more hint/warning > > banners pointing to firmware-including installation images? > > > > We already have one at > > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/ > > > > So we could also add it to other pages (and re-use the translations as > > well): > > https://www.debian.org/distrib/ > > https://www.debian.org/distrib/netinst > > https://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/ > > https://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/ > > > > Of course it's not optimal to be forced to add it to so many pages, > > but the restructuring of the download / "getting-debian" section is > > already on the agenda, so in the long term we can hopefully reduce the > > amount > > of pages with that warning back to a low number like 2 or 3? > > > > The above is for stable. > > We could also do similar for the testing firmware-including images > > (that's probably the more important part, since there is no mention of such > > images at all on the website). > > > > > > Should I try to work out a proposal/patch? > > First patch attached. FYI: a patch has been applied in the meantime, adding such hint to nearly all d.o pages, which have links to download images www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/ www.debian.org/CD/live/ www.debian.org/CD/netinst/ www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/ www.debian.org/distrib/ www.debian.org/distrib/netinst www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/debian-installer/ www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/debian-installer/ www.debian.org/releases/buster/debian-installer/ www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ to make users aware of those images. Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Re: Making Debian available, non-free promotor
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:44:36AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > On 2021/01/28 01:49, Daniel S. wrote: > > The hope would be that, after collecting a 5 figure sum has been > > donated, paid developers work on freeing the most common firmware(s). > > If that was enough to free up firmware, we'd probably have figured out a > way to pay that right away without even spending time doing additional > fund raising. I do read that as "Lets figure out the other options" Regards Geert Stappers DD -- Silence is hard to parse
Re: Making Debian available, non-free promotor
On 2021/01/28 01:49, Daniel S. wrote: > The hope would be that, after collecting a 5 figure sum has been > donated, paid developers work on freeing the most common firmware(s). If that was enough to free up firmware, we'd probably have figured out a way to pay that right away without even spending time doing additional fund raising. -Jonathan
Re: Making Debian available, non-free promotor
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:49:43AM +0100, Daniel S. wrote: > * Consider donating $25 to our __free-WiFi-fund__ to free your adapter > firmware What fund? > This gives visibility to the actual problem and the only true solution. What true solution? > It works towards a future, where the free image is no longer "broken for > ordinary users" > Instead of compromising Debian values, it highlights them. > The hope would be that, after collecting a 5 figure sum has been > donated, paid developers work on freeing the most common firmware(s). ... that's not how it works. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available, non-free promotor
I'd like to propose a solution that helps both, the user and Debian: Add a message like this on the downloads page: ## NOTE: This image does not provide unfree WiFi firmware. If you have a WiFi adapter, it will most likely not work. (__learn more__) * Consider using __this__ image instead. * Consider donating $25 to our __free-WiFi-fund__ to free your adapter firmware Learn more: __What is non-free firmware & why should I care?__ ## This gives visibility to the actual problem and the only true solution. It works towards a future, where the free image is no longer "broken for ordinary users" Instead of compromising Debian values, it highlights them. The hope would be that, after collecting a 5 figure sum has been donated, paid developers work on freeing the most common firmware(s). A similar message could be shown during / after installation, IF use of an unfree WiFi blob is detected: "Consider donating to free the firmware of your adapter, Qualcomm Atheros AR9462" (Of course, a disclaimer needs to be in place that it can neither be guaranteed that any blob can be successfully be replaced, nor that this specific one can or will be worked on) Daniel
Re: Making Debian available
Hi, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 25 ian 21, 19:35:25, Thomas Lange wrote: > > Another very odd thing I found. > > > > On https://www.debian.org/CD/faq/ > > there's no hint about images including non-free firmware. No hint > > about firmware at all. And then this FAQ > > > > > > Where is the CD image with non-free? > > . > > Sometimes, someone is kind enough to create unofficial non-free CDs. If you > > cannot find any links on this website, you can try asking on the debian-cd > > mailing list. > > > > > > So we do not tell our users that we (the CD team I guess) already > > create these very usefull images including non-free firmware. And then > > we tell the users to search the link themselves. Not very friendly. > > As far as I recall that entry refers to CDs with the entire non-free > component of the archive, not just firmware packages (which were seldom > or even inexistent at the time the FAQ was written). As it seems, some relicts of this can be found at the end of ./english/CD/http-ftp/index.wml Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Re: Making Debian available
On 25.01.2021 07:25, Holger Wansing wrote: Such link is already there: "More: Further links to downloads and software" That gives you a list, and the first entry points to - ta-da - distrib/ With my fullscreen browser, it is well below the fold and I did not even realize it was there. I usually look for such links directly below the big Download button. My favorite solution would be a link in smallprint similar to how https://desktop.github.com/ offers alternative versions. Cheers Timo OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Making Debian available
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021, at 16:34, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 25 ian 21, 19:35:25, Thomas Lange wrote: > > Another very odd thing I found. > > > > On https://www.debian.org/CD/faq/ > > there's no hint about images including non-free firmware. No hint > > about firmware at all. And then this FAQ > > > > > > Where is the CD image with non-free? > > . > > Sometimes, someone is kind enough to create unofficial non-free CDs. If you > > cannot find any links on this website, you can try asking on the debian-cd > > mailing list. > > > > > > So we do not tell our users that we (the CD team I guess) already > > create these very usefull images including non-free firmware. And then > > we tell the users to search the link themselves. Not very friendly. > > As far as I recall that entry refers to CDs with the entire non-free > component of the archive, not just firmware packages (which were seldom > or even inexistent at the time the FAQ was written). That's correct. It is not about non-free firmware, but rather the non-free distribution as a whole. That FAQ entry neither explains things well enough, nor is it very helpful. It could use an update... Heck, I am not even sure the installer could use anything in that non-free CD set to actually load non-free firmware at *install time* (as opposed to installing it to be available on the final system after a reboot) without a lot of manual intervention... -- Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
Re: Making Debian available
On Lu, 25 ian 21, 19:35:25, Thomas Lange wrote: > Another very odd thing I found. > > On https://www.debian.org/CD/faq/ > there's no hint about images including non-free firmware. No hint > about firmware at all. And then this FAQ > > > Where is the CD image with non-free? > . > Sometimes, someone is kind enough to create unofficial non-free CDs. If you > cannot find any links on this website, you can try asking on the debian-cd > mailing list. > > > So we do not tell our users that we (the CD team I guess) already > create these very usefull images including non-free firmware. And then > we tell the users to search the link themselves. Not very friendly. As far as I recall that entry refers to CDs with the entire non-free component of the archive, not just firmware packages (which were seldom or even inexistent at the time the FAQ was written). Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
Another very odd thing I found. On https://www.debian.org/CD/faq/ there's no hint about images including non-free firmware. No hint about firmware at all. And then this FAQ Where is the CD image with non-free? . Sometimes, someone is kind enough to create unofficial non-free CDs. If you cannot find any links on this website, you can try asking on the debian-cd mailing list. So we do not tell our users that we (the CD team I guess) already create these very usefull images including non-free firmware. And then we tell the users to search the link themselves. Not very friendly. Please improve the FAQ and add a link to the ISO our end user need to install their notebook with Debian. -- regards Thomas
Re: Making Debian available
Another very odd thing I found. On https://www.debian.org/CD/faq/ there's no hint about images including non-free firmware. No hint about firmware at all. And then this FAQ Where is the CD image with non-free? . Sometimes, someone is kind enough to create unofficial non-free CDs. If you cannot find any links on this website, you can try asking on the debian-cd mailing list. So we do not tell our users that we (the CD team I guess) already create these very usefull images including non-free firmware. And then we tell the users to search the link themselves. Not very friendly. Please improve the FAQ and add a link to the ISO our end user need to install their notebook with Debian. -- regards Thomas
Re: Making Debian available
On 25/01/2021 07:22, Tobias Frost wrote: Am Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 07:28:07PM +0100 schrieb Philipp Kern: On 24.01.21 17:08, John Scott wrote: Changing the firmware on an EEPROM is far less practical for the user or manufacturer (they're on similar footing), and if it's not electronically erasable, it's merely an object that can't be practically changed of which you'd need to make a new one anyway. LVFS is a thing now (kudos to Richard Hughes) and firmware updates can nowadays be pretty seamless, even on Linux. So I don't think I agree that EEPROM updates are far less practical. And I think I'd still prefer if the kernel pushes the (driver-)appropriate firmware to the device as it sees fit rather than having explicit EEPROM update cycles independent from driver updates. 1. Unlike with SSD firmware, there are wireless cards that use libre firmware and some are still manufactured and quite easy to attain. The goalpost for free software moves with what has been achieved. I guess to make your point stronger you could also have linked to those products that work with libre firmware. A brief research then finds two abgn cards from Atheros that is not available through normal retail channels anymore, because they are 8 to 10 years old (at least) and do not support contemporary wifi standards. And the same research turns up that it took many years from the point were it existed (2013) until it got uploaded to Debian (2017) and released (2019). I think its existence is super interesting from a research point of view. But I don't think it makes a strong case for availability of libre firmware for wifi cards. Especially if you care about spectral efficiency, i.e. using a shared medium efficiently. AFAIK those adapters are of the past. Nowerdays (FCC) regulations require some tamper protection, so people can no longer operate their Wifi with illegal parameters. [1]. All those parameters are usually controlled by the firmware of the device. [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2339685/fcc-software-security-requirements.pdf Regardless, our potential users will very likely not have those devices in their laptop. I guess the will just swear, saying Debian sucks, and move along to some other distribution which potentially does not give user freedoms the same priority. At least that was some feedback I've received IRL. IMHO this is a lost opportunity, as we can't educate those about the importance of FLOSS anymore*. Users also regularily start spreading the word, maybe even starting contributing to the project and possibly becoming a part of the movement and project.** Shouldn't be that our ulitmate goal?*** * (e.g I didn't know much about FLOSS when I started using Debian. With limited budget as student, "free as in beer" it was. I agree with this point, even if we don't contribute code, we can contribute in other ways, by spreading the word and making sure people get as positive experience as possible. More difficult in a pandemic but lets do what we can. Build a stronger community. According to vrms vrms Non-free packages installed on HP-Mini firmware-brcm80211 Binary firmware for Broadcom/Cypress 802.11 wireless c Contrib packages installed on HP-Mini rocksndiamonds arcade-style game 1 non-free packages, 0.1% of 1828 installed packages. 1 contrib packages, 0.1% of 1828 installed packages. I don't think 0.1 percent of my packages being non free software is bad going really. Keep up the good work. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Making Debian available
Am Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 07:28:07PM +0100 schrieb Philipp Kern: > On 24.01.21 17:08, John Scott wrote: > > Changing the firmware on an EEPROM is far less practical for the user or > > manufacturer (they're on similar footing), and if it's not electronically > > erasable, it's merely an object that can't be practically changed of which > > you'd need to make a new one anyway. > > LVFS is a thing now (kudos to Richard Hughes) and firmware updates can > nowadays be pretty seamless, even on Linux. So I don't think I agree > that EEPROM updates are far less practical. And I think I'd still prefer > if the kernel pushes the (driver-)appropriate firmware to the device as > it sees fit rather than having explicit EEPROM update cycles independent > from driver updates. > > > 1. Unlike with SSD firmware, there are wireless cards that use libre > > firmware > > and some are still manufactured and quite easy to attain. The goalpost for > > free software moves with what has been achieved. > > I guess to make your point stronger you could also have linked to those > products that work with libre firmware. A brief research then finds two > abgn cards from Atheros that is not available through normal retail > channels anymore, because they are 8 to 10 years old (at least) and do > not support contemporary wifi standards. And the same research turns up > that it took many years from the point were it existed (2013) until it > got uploaded to Debian (2017) and released (2019). I think its existence > is super interesting from a research point of view. But I don't think it > makes a strong case for availability of libre firmware for wifi cards. > Especially if you care about spectral efficiency, i.e. using a shared > medium efficiently. AFAIK those adapters are of the past. Nowerdays (FCC) regulations require some tamper protection, so people can no longer operate their Wifi with illegal parameters. [1]. All those parameters are usually controlled by the firmware of the device. [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2339685/fcc-software-security-requirements.pdf Regardless, our potential users will very likely not have those devices in their laptop. I guess the will just swear, saying Debian sucks, and move along to some other distribution which potentially does not give user freedoms the same priority. At least that was some feedback I've received IRL. IMHO this is a lost opportunity, as we can't educate those about the importance of FLOSS anymore*. Users also regularily start spreading the word, maybe even starting contributing to the project and possibly becoming a part of the movement and project.** Shouldn't be that our ulitmate goal?*** * (e.g I didn't know much about FLOSS when I started using Debian. With limited budget as student, "free as in beer" it was. ** That reads a lot like my personal story, because this is how it happened. If I couldn't get Debian installed at that time (pre Wifi-times), I probably would not be here typing this. *** to be clear: this does not mean that people not wanting to touch non-free-stuff with a 3m pole should be forced to do so. Of course, this should be opt-in not opt-outM but we currentyl at "almost impossible [for novice users] to find the non-free images / or almost impossible to use the firmware loading feature of the free one.) Just my 2 cents. -- tobi
Re: Making Debian available
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:08:56 -0500, John Scott wrote: >1. Unlike with SSD firmware, there are wireless cards that use libre firmware >and some are still manufactured and quite easy to attain. The goalpost for >free software moves with what has been achieved. >One used to have to accept using a proprietary BIOS, but not anymore; >Coreboot/Libreboot have pushed that boundary, so now it's been realized as >something attainable. When the first libre SSD comes out, then we can worry >about SSD freedom, because then we'll be able to lend our support. Okay. What you're saying is: "Debian, your universal operating system that only works if you use ten year old hardware after serious tinkering". This is as far away from a useable system like a 1988 Diesel Engine from modern pollution standards. As Philipp said correctly, super interesting from a research point of view, but inacceptable to a mere user. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Making Debian available
Hi again, Am Sonntag, 24. Januar 2021 schrieb Alexis Murzeau: > > The installation image remains 100% free. But at some point the > > installer asks the user if they wish to add another media containing > > software. Users would then be able to put another CD or USB key (for > > example) containing a bundle of non-free drivers. > > > > Bundles of non-free drivers would be generated regularly and provided on > > a webpage which clearly indicates the downsides of having non-free > > software installed. But it could give a clear tutorial on how to copy > > the bundle to a USB key and how to tell the debian-installer to use it. > > > > In fact, I think this already exists as stated here: > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch06s04.en.html > > But the issue is probably just to make it more easy to find for users. Yes. But another issue is that firmware for video cards is not installed even it is provided on such stick. See my proposal from end of december: https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2020/12/msg00160.html Holger -- Sent from my Jolla phone http://www.jolla.com/
Re: Making Debian available
> I personally think the main page could have also have a "Other downloads" > link to one of the more complete download pages (like /distrib), so > users not familiar with the wiki can find it one click away. > > Maybe I can propose a patch for at least this small link to /distrib Such link is already there: "More: Further links to downloads and software" That gives you a list, and the first entry points to - ta-da - distrib/ Holger -- Sent from my Jolla phone http://www.jolla.com/
Re: Making Debian available
Le 24/01/2021 à 22:11, Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY a écrit : > Kudos for your very fine summary, Bjørn! > > I don't know if the proposal to place non-free things into the Debian > installation image will be accepted. But if it is not, here is another > proposal that would clearly separate the free from the non-free: > > The installation image remains 100% free. But at some point the > installer asks the user if they wish to add another media containing > software. Users would then be able to put another CD or USB key (for > example) containing a bundle of non-free drivers. > > Bundles of non-free drivers would be generated regularly and provided on > a webpage which clearly indicates the downsides of having non-free > software installed. But it could give a clear tutorial on how to copy > the bundle to a USB key and how to tell the debian-installer to use it. > In fact, I think this already exists as stated here: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch06s04.en.html But the issue is probably just to make it more easy to find for users. The OP just said: > I couldn’t install from a net install version because of my wireless > chipset not being supported directly by Debian. > The current policy of hiding other versions of Debian is limiting the > adoption of your OS by people like me who are interested in moving from > Windows 10. It seems all the information and required files to install Debian on any computer already exists, but is just too hard to find when the user is trying Debian for the first time. To me, proposals from Holger Wansing are a step to the right direction: For example (from "Re: Making Debian available - patch for webwml" thread): https://people.debian.org/~holgerw/webwml_non-free-firmware/english/distrib/index.en.html The added information at the end of the page shows were to find bundle of non-free firmwares (to put on a dedicated storage for use with free netinst) and also unofficial installer files bundling these non-free firmware. I personally think the main page could have also have a "Other downloads" link to one of the more complete download pages (like /distrib), so users not familiar with the wiki can find it one click away. Maybe I can propose a patch for at least this small link to /distrib -- Alexis Murzeau PGP: B7E6 0EBB 9293 7B06 BDBC 2787 E7BD 1904 F480 937F| signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Making Debian available
Kudos for your very fine summary, Bjørn! I don't know if the proposal to place non-free things into the Debian installation image will be accepted. But if it is not, here is another proposal that would clearly separate the free from the non-free: The installation image remains 100% free. But at some point the installer asks the user if they wish to add another media containing software. Users would then be able to put another CD or USB key (for example) containing a bundle of non-free drivers. Bundles of non-free drivers would be generated regularly and provided on a webpage which clearly indicates the downsides of having non-free software installed. But it could give a clear tutorial on how to copy the bundle to a USB key and how to tell the debian-installer to use it. -- Fabrice Bauzac-Stehly PGP 01EEACF8244E9C14B551C5256ADA5F189BD322B6 old PGP 015AE9B25DCB0511D200A75DE5674DEA514C891D
Re: Making Debian available
On 24.01.21 17:08, John Scott wrote: > Changing the firmware on an EEPROM is far less practical for the user or > manufacturer (they're on similar footing), and if it's not electronically > erasable, it's merely an object that can't be practically changed of which > you'd need to make a new one anyway. LVFS is a thing now (kudos to Richard Hughes) and firmware updates can nowadays be pretty seamless, even on Linux. So I don't think I agree that EEPROM updates are far less practical. And I think I'd still prefer if the kernel pushes the (driver-)appropriate firmware to the device as it sees fit rather than having explicit EEPROM update cycles independent from driver updates. > 1. Unlike with SSD firmware, there are wireless cards that use libre firmware > and some are still manufactured and quite easy to attain. The goalpost for > free software moves with what has been achieved. I guess to make your point stronger you could also have linked to those products that work with libre firmware. A brief research then finds two abgn cards from Atheros that is not available through normal retail channels anymore, because they are 8 to 10 years old (at least) and do not support contemporary wifi standards. And the same research turns up that it took many years from the point were it existed (2013) until it got uploaded to Debian (2017) and released (2019). I think its existence is super interesting from a research point of view. But I don't think it makes a strong case for availability of libre firmware for wifi cards. Especially if you care about spectral efficiency, i.e. using a shared medium efficiently. Kind regards Philipp Kern [1] https://libreplanet.org/wiki/LinuxLibre:Devices_that_require_non-free_firmware
Re: Making Debian available
On Sunday, January 24, 2021 7:19:58 AM EST Bjørn Mork wrote: > What we are left with is users who are offended by the mere existence of > non-free binaries on a Debian image, and who see this as significantly > worse than the non-free firmware in their NIC, SSD, EC, CPU etc. The reason why, say, wireless firmware is more serious from a software freedom standpoint (and I believe the FSF's stance) is: 1. Unlike with SSD firmware, there are wireless cards that use libre firmware and some are still manufactured and quite easy to attain. The goalpost for free software moves with what has been achieved. One used to have to accept using a proprietary BIOS, but not anymore; Coreboot/Libreboot have pushed that boundary, so now it's been realized as something attainable. When the first libre SSD comes out, then we can worry about SSD freedom, because then we'll be able to lend our support. 2. Firmware copied by Debian onto a device's RAM is very easy to change for the manufacturer with an update: they get the liquidity of software at their disposal. The user doesn't get to take advantage of this, so the manufacturer holds a good amount of control over the user, comparable to ordinary software. Changing the firmware on an EEPROM is far less practical for the user or manufacturer (they're on similar footing), and if it's not electronically erasable, it's merely an object that can't be practically changed of which you'd need to make a new one anyway. I hope this explains the viewpoints of those opposed to the proprietary firmware in installation images, and why they distinguish it from other notions of firmware. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Making Debian available
Hi, Bjørn Mork wrote: > It has been documented in this thread it is possible to install Debian > on such systems. But the images which allow this without additional > steps is well hidden. And the procedure supported the default images is > so complicated that even expert longtime Debian users have a hard time > using it. FYI: we have a chapter in the installation-guide about that: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch06s04.en.html -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Re: -1 (Re: Making Debian available)
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 09:01:33PM +, Paul Sutton wrote: > During install, the installer asks if you have a disk with drivers on for > this closed hardware, I don't know what it wants at this point. > > If we could insert a 2nd usb disk, or anything with the correct drivers on, > it may help. It's indeed a possibility but it seems to be very hard to use, especially for people who are just installing their first Linux system, and especially for people who just don't have a second removable medium. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
There is no one proposing that non-free should be mandatory. The original topic was whether it should be possible to install Debian at all, noting that there are situations where this now is so difficult that it will be percevied as "impossible" by some users. I believe it is an undisputed fact that there are computers which need non-free firmware to access the Internet. There is most likely also a group of potentional Debian users who would prefer to use WiFi for installation even if they have other options. Should computers/users with WiFi-only Internet access be supported by Debian? I'll assume the answer is yes. After all, Debian is "The universal operating system". It has been documented in this thread it is possible to install Debian on such systems. But the images which allow this without additional steps is well hidden. And the procedure supported the default images is so complicated that even expert longtime Debian users have a hard time using it. The procedure would obviously be simpler if the firmware was included in the default installation image. I don't think there is any dispute so far? So we have established an upside. The dispute seems to be about the downside. Is there one? The firmware we are discussing is avaliable to every Debian user with Internet access. Whether it is in the installation image or not does not change that. Availabilty does not imply that the firmware must be used. The installer can still ask about using "additional non-free drivers" for installation. The difference is that the user will have an actual choice. As mentioned before, the use of non-free for the installed system does not depend on this at all. And IMHO, it should be left as an unrelated question. Even allowing temporary usage of non-free firmware to install Debian on a system with only free software. No choice is taken from the user. What we are left with is users who are offended by the mere existence of non-free binaries on a Debian image, and who see this as significantly worse than the non-free firmware in their NIC, SSD, EC, CPU etc. And worse than the existence of the same firmware on the Internet, including any Debian morror serving non-free. These users, if any, could be served by a non-default Debian image where the non-free firmware has been removed. Does that downside even compare to the upside? Are there any users who are offended by the mere existence of a file in an installation image they are free to avoid? Did I miss something? Debian is "The universal operating system". The implications are clear in my opinion. Bjørn
Re: Making Debian available
On 23/01 02:32, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > We're arguing different points, and I fear talking past one another. Yeah. FWIW the two of us did eventually end up agreeing that including firmware while giving the chance to opt-out would be a workable compromise, though. I think we did, at least! :)
Re: Making Debian available
On 2021-01-24 01:49:28 +0500 (+0500), Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: [...] > As is often mentioned, researching is not very helpful when you > want WiFi. And people who are fine with severely crippling their > computers for FSF reasons should probably be some non-default > niche with separate considerations (or just use FSF-blessed > distros, which don't and likely won't include Debian anyway). I really love that you feel obliged to tell me and others interested in software freedom that they should go away because they're not welcome in *your* Debian. I've personally never mentioned the FSF, I'm not an FSF member, I'm not even particularly convinced by their "copyleft is superior to permissive" arguments. The exaggeration fallacy being employed by you and others in this hampers civilized discussion of the issues experienced by users, whether they're seeking a means of minimizing their dependence on proprietary software or just looking for something easy to install. I honestly should be insulted by your assertion that anyone who doesn't abandon the DFSG is "crippling their computers" (for a number of reasons beyond the fact that by employing that word you're maligning anyone with a physical handicap by comparing them to what you see as defective equipment). Let's please stay focused on facts, and not devolve further into such argumentum ad hominem. -- Jeremy Stanley signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: -1 (Re: Making Debian available)
On 23/01/2021 20:42, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 03:39:21PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: But the sentiment above and in other similar messages were that the completely free images are broken for many users that might need some non-free firmware. This is simply not true. The completely free images are broken for most users that want working WiFi, unless you count providing firmware separately as "working". I don't think this is something that can be argued against. This is especially bad for netinst images. Again, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be images that contain non-free firmware, but dismissing the images that don't have firmware on as useless is harmful and misleading. Sure, there is some use for them, mostly VMs and some of the Ethernet-connected machines. During install, the installer asks if you have a disk with drivers on for this closed hardware, I don't know what it wants at this point. If we could insert a 2nd usb disk, or anything with the correct drivers on, it may help. Paul -- Paul Sutton https://personaljournal.ca/paulsutton/ OpenPGP: 4350 91C4 C8FB 681B 23A6 7944 8EA9 1B51 E27E 3D99 Mini Debian Gaming Conference - 19-22 November 2020 https://mdco2.mini.debconf.org/ OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Making Debian available
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 02:32:42PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > I'll join the less-vocal crowd in disagreeing that the fully free > image is especially defective (any more so than other software), and > I feel like painting it that way does harm to your argument. Yes > things could be better, on all fronts, but calling the hard work of > the community and installer team "defective" because it doesn't > cater to the specific set of users or devices you think it should Surely this depends on the relative size of this "specific set". > isn't a great way to encourage continued participation in those > efforts. Yes, it's very important to often reconsider how useful is your work, especially when it's volunteer one. > I suppose I'm one of those lucky/nonexistent souls who carefully > researches devices before purchase, As is often mentioned, researching is not very helpful when you want WiFi. And people who are fine with severely crippling their computers for FSF reasons should probably be some non-default niche with separate considerations (or just use FSF-blessed distros, which don't and likely won't include Debian anyway). -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: -1 (Re: Making Debian available)
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 03:39:21PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > But the sentiment above and in other similar messages were that the > completely free images are broken for many users that might need some > non-free firmware. This is simply not true. The completely free images are broken for most users that want working WiFi, unless you count providing firmware separately as "working". I don't think this is something that can be argued against. This is especially bad for netinst images. > Again, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be images that contain > non-free firmware, but dismissing the images that don't have firmware on > as useless is harmful and misleading. Sure, there is some use for them, mostly VMs and some of the Ethernet-connected machines. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 04:30:00PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Le samedi 23 janvier 2021 à 16:23:47+0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > > On Jan 23, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > > > While I appreciate your point, and agree with the rationale behind it > > > (having something that works for very recent hardware would be good), I > > This is not about "very recent" hardware, it is really about "most > > hardware". > > > > > personally find the way you express it rude for those whose principle > > > are on the side of sticking to the philosophy of the project, which is > > > to provide Free Software. > > I do identify as somebody sticking to the philosophy of the project, > > which is to provide Free Software, as it was understood when I joined > > Debian 24 years ago. > > > > I still believe that advertising CD images which do not work for the > > vast majority of our users is self-inflicted harm which does not help > > anybody. > > I understand. We all understand it. Okay, most of us understand it. > But could you maybe consider telling it in a way that doesn't make us > look like we want to have a gap between our own members on each and > every topic please? Requests on how to tell about a gap, will NOT close that gap. Regards Geert Stappers -- Silence is hard to parse
Re: Making Debian available
Le samedi 23 janvier 2021 à 16:23:47+0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > On Jan 23, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > While I appreciate your point, and agree with the rationale behind it > > (having something that works for very recent hardware would be good), I > This is not about "very recent" hardware, it is really about "most > hardware". > > > personally find the way you express it rude for those whose principle > > are on the side of sticking to the philosophy of the project, which is > > to provide Free Software. > I do identify as somebody sticking to the philosophy of the project, > which is to provide Free Software, as it was understood when I joined > Debian 24 years ago. > > I still believe that advertising CD images which do not work for the > vast majority of our users is self-inflicted harm which does not help > anybody. I understand. But could you maybe consider telling it in a way that doesn't make us look like we want to have a gap between our own members on each and every topic please? Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
On Jan 23, Vincent Bernat wrote: > This is an anecdotical evidence. To my knowledge, it's not possible to > make a wireless card work without a proprietary firmware. As laptops are > getting thinner, the Ethernet port is getting away and dongles to get > port the RJ45 port are not bundled anymore. This is not just about laptops and wireless adapters: many modern and widely used wired Ethernet adapters require uploading a firmware. This applies to servers as much as to desktops. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
On Jan 23, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > While I appreciate your point, and agree with the rationale behind it > (having something that works for very recent hardware would be good), I This is not about "very recent" hardware, it is really about "most hardware". > personally find the way you express it rude for those whose principle > are on the side of sticking to the philosophy of the project, which is > to provide Free Software. I do identify as somebody sticking to the philosophy of the project, which is to provide Free Software, as it was understood when I joined Debian 24 years ago. I still believe that advertising CD images which do not work for the vast majority of our users is self-inflicted harm which does not help anybody. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
Le lundi 18 janvier 2021 à 22:56:34+0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > On Jan 18, Marc Haber wrote: > > > Imagine the catastrophal message we're sending by "here is our > > official image, but that one is unlikely to work on your laptop, > > better use this here." > Yes, it would be bad marketing. > But at least we could show users something that works, so that's still > better than the current situation if the self-harm faction will keep > fighting for that. While I appreciate your point, and agree with the rationale behind it (having something that works for very recent hardware would be good), I personally find the way you express it rude for those whose principle are on the side of sticking to the philosophy of the project, which is to provide Free Software. Calling those standing in that direction "self-harm faction" does not seem good, and is actually doing harm to the project (from a project member, is that what we should call self harming?). Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
❦ 23 janvier 2021 15:39 +02, Jonathan Carter: > But the sentiment above and in other similar messages were that the > completely free images are broken for many users that might need some > non-free firmware. This is simply not true. I've only ever installed > using the free images, and then afterwards just install the firmware > packages I actually need. On all my thinkpads this was typically just > the intel wifi firmware, which is super quick and simple, on my AMD > laptop I needed some amd graphics firmware which wasn't on the media, > but also a very quick install and it works flawlessly, so I think > implying that the free images are completely unusable for people who > might need firmware is an unreasonably large stretch. I also like that I > know exactly which non-free firmware packages are installed on my > system. This is an anecdotical evidence. To my knowledge, it's not possible to make a wireless card work without a proprietary firmware. As laptops are getting thinner, the Ethernet port is getting away and dongles to get port the RJ45 port are not bundled anymore. > Again, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be images that contain > non-free firmware, but dismissing the images that don't have firmware on > as useless is harmful and misleading. If a novice user is presented with "download this image if you need non-free firmware", "download this image otherwise", they will likely choose the second, won't they? We would just succeed in confusing our users and send them to a more friendly distribution. As for myself, firmwares were burnt in a ROM before, they didn't get less free by being side-loaded but at least they can now be updated. So, I really don't care about how many firmwares I have on my laptop. -- Avoid temporary variables. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
Re: Making Debian available
On 2021-01-23 11:14:52 +0100 (+0100), Emanuele Rocca wrote: > On 22/01 08:30, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > Taking away the choice for users who care about software freedom > > to opt out of non-free content in the installer and find > > alternative options would be a loss of freedom, in service of > > convenience for users who aren't as invested in trying to > > minimize their use of non-free software. > > Having the option to opt-out firmware during the installation > procedure seems reasonable to me, and I don't think anyone was > suggesting otherwise. A statement was made which could have been interpreted that way, that the non-free image "works for all users," and all I was attempting to point out is that for some definitions of "works" that's just not true. We're arguing different points, and I fear talking past one another. > The situation we are in today is very different though: we build a > Defective by Design image that fails to install Debian on lots of > computers because it does not include the firmware most WiFi cards > need to function. If we were to make a mistake and accidentally > include such firmware, people would be able to use what we publish > on www.debian.org under the large "Download" button to install > Debian on their Thinkpads, and we would consider that a problem. > That's insane. I'll join the less-vocal crowd in disagreeing that the fully free image is especially defective (any more so than other software), and I feel like painting it that way does harm to your argument. Yes things could be better, on all fronts, but calling the hard work of the community and installer team "defective" because it doesn't cater to the specific set of users or devices you think it should isn't a great way to encourage continued participation in those efforts. I don't call the non-free installer image "useless" even though in its current form I'd personally prefer not to use it. I suppose I'm one of those lucky/nonexistent souls who carefully researches devices before purchase, often joining in crowdfunding or otherwise waiting on lengthy preorders specifically so I can support organizations designing and manufacturing devices targeting free/libre open source operating systems, who actually work to get any new drivers integrated into the mainline Linux and *BSD kernels, who distribute the source code and build toolchains for their own firmwares, openly license their board layouts and parts manifests, and so on. I appreciate that Debian gives me choice when it comes to software freedom and hope it continues to do so; this is why it's been my Linux distribution of choice for well over two decades already. I do sometimes install non-free firmware blobs (and you can even find me in the Debian changelog for firmware-linux-nonfree), so it's not as if I have a problem with the idea of improving visibility for non-free suite or the unofficial installer which ships them. I personally wouldn't even mind if they were included with the official installer builds so long as they didn't get applied automatically while in expert mode, but today the choice we have is between an image which has no non-free software requiring you to supply it yourself if necessary to complete installation, or an image which automatically installs non-free firmware even if you don't strictly need it... or finding time to participate in the installer team fixing bugs and revamping how some of this works, as such endless discussion doesn't magically write software. -- Jeremy Stanley signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: +1 (Re: Making Debian available)
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 10:43:40AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:14:52AM +0100, Emanuele Rocca wrote: > > Having the option to opt-out firmware during the installation procedure > > seems reasonable to me, and I don't think anyone was suggesting > > otherwise. > > > > The situation we are in today is very different though: we build a > > Defective by Design image that fails to install Debian on lots of > > computers because it does not include the firmware most WiFi cards need > > to function. If we were to make a mistake and accidentally include such > > firmware, people would be able to use what we publish on www.debian.org > > under the large "Download" button to install Debian on their Thinkpads, > > and we would consider that a problem. That's insane. > > very well said, thank you! > Yes, we have to embrace firmware blobs. No for accepting Binary Large OBjects, but for accepting hardware. When we are not customers of hardware that "needs" blobs, we are not in a position to negotiation about it. Regards Geert Stappers -- Silence is hard to parse
Re: -1 (Re: Making Debian available)
On 2021/01/23 12:43, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:14:52AM +0100, Emanuele Rocca wrote: >> Having the option to opt-out firmware during the installation procedure >> seems reasonable to me, and I don't think anyone was suggesting >> otherwise. >> >> The situation we are in today is very different though: we build a >> Defective by Design image that fails to install Debian on lots of >> computers because it does not include the firmware most WiFi cards need >> to function. If we were to make a mistake and accidentally include such >> firmware, people would be able to use what we publish on www.debian.org >> under the large "Download" button to install Debian on their Thinkpads, >> and we would consider that a problem. That's insane. > > very well said, thank you! I find myself disagreeing with both of you. Firstly, no doubt having firmware available on the media would be convienient to many users, I'm not contesting that here. But the sentiment above and in other similar messages were that the completely free images are broken for many users that might need some non-free firmware. This is simply not true. I've only ever installed using the free images, and then afterwards just install the firmware packages I actually need. On all my thinkpads this was typically just the intel wifi firmware, which is super quick and simple, on my AMD laptop I needed some amd graphics firmware which wasn't on the media, but also a very quick install and it works flawlessly, so I think implying that the free images are completely unusable for people who might need firmware is an unreasonably large stretch. I also like that I know exactly which non-free firmware packages are installed on my system. Again, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be images that contain non-free firmware, but dismissing the images that don't have firmware on as useless is harmful and misleading. -Jonathan
Re: Making Debian available, non-free promotor
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 07:56:30PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 15.01.21 13:42, Ansgar wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 19:30 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > >> Ah, yes I also wonder how much the world will improve > >> if non-free would be split in non-free and non-free-firmware. > >> Currently is non free firmware a hugh promoter of non-free in > >> /etc/apt/sources.list > > > > I proposed moving non-free firmware to a new non-free-firmware some > > time ago[1], but then it seemed like there was no consensus on this > > which I though we had before. Some people wanted non-free/firmware > > instead (different name), wanted packages to start appearing in > > multiple components (non-free and non-free[/-]firmware), wanted > > additional categories (e.g. non-free/doc for Free Software Foundation > > stuff), wanted non-free drivers as well, wanted major changes how > > components work (which might imply incompatible changes for mirroring > > tools and so on), ... > > I idly wonder if we could call it firmware and call it a day. I tried to > propose that a bunch of times and was not successful either (e.g. it was > unclear to me if that needed a GR). > This is now hitting sites like LWN and The Register. There's a convenience factor and a free software factor - either way, we're putting off our new users. Pragmatically: Can I suggest a revamp of the web pages - perhaps along the following lines: 1. A clear pointer to the existing Debian offiical image hierarchy * pointing out that this does NOT contain firmware which might be necessary for some wifi / video cards.** * Pointing out also that this image is ideal for VMs / containers where the firmware is dealt with by the underlying OS. * Pointing out also that this is the official image that is tested when we do point releases (we don't and can't test every possible iteration of firmware - and that point can be reiterated at 4 below if necessary). * Pointing out that this is the image we can fix when stuff goes wrong :) [** Also put an "in case of problems" pointer to the instructions for how to add firmware by other methods in case someone finds part way through an install that they're stuck.] A pointer at the same relative level to the existing Debian unofficial image [See further 4. below] 2. A short guide as to how to find out what firmware you need BEFORE you install Debian and notes as to what that might be - which firmware corresponds to which package. with, possibly, a separate 3. Further reading guide with pointers to Wiki or elsewhere dealing with: * Specific hardware problems * UsingDebianOn Wiki pages * Problematic chipsets where you might have to compile from a Github repository * Build and use DKMS modules (advanced users only) * A pointer about things like the Raspberry Pi which require a different approach to non-free firmware. 4. A pointer to the images including firmware with a note making explicit that this is provided for the convenience of users who otherwise would be unable to install Debian at all: * a pointer about how to limit the amount of non-free firmware you install to the necessary packages, * that you don't need every firmware package, * that some firmware packages conflict * Perhaps a pointer to using USB-Ethernet adapters as a straightforward way round some of the issues for an install fest. This doesn't change anything in our approach - it is explicit. As to how to split up non-free - I leave that to others and another GR :( Andy Cater > I guess better non-free filtering would not be a bad idea, though. For > the buildd network it is also still an unsolved question how to allow > build-depending on a (small, allowlisted) subset of non-free. > > Kind regards > Philipp Kern >
Re: Making Debian available
Am Samstag, 23. Januar 2021 schrieb Emanuele Rocca: > On 22/01 08:30, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > Taking away the choice for users who care about software freedom to > > opt out of non-free content in the installer and find alternative > > options would be a loss of freedom, in service of convenience for > > users who aren't as invested in trying to minimize their use of > > non-free software. > > Having the option to opt-out firmware during the installation procedure > seems reasonable to me, and I don't think anyone was suggesting > otherwise. > > The situation we are in today is very different though: we build a > Defective by Design image that fails to install Debian on lots > of computers because it does not include the firmware most WiFi cards need In any case: if any of these ideas are wished to become reality, I fear someone will need to step in into the installer team and do some coding ... Holger -- Sent from my Jolla phone http://www.jolla.com/
+1 (Re: Making Debian available)
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:14:52AM +0100, Emanuele Rocca wrote: > Having the option to opt-out firmware during the installation procedure > seems reasonable to me, and I don't think anyone was suggesting > otherwise. > > The situation we are in today is very different though: we build a > Defective by Design image that fails to install Debian on lots of > computers because it does not include the firmware most WiFi cards need > to function. If we were to make a mistake and accidentally include such > firmware, people would be able to use what we publish on www.debian.org > under the large "Download" button to install Debian on their Thinkpads, > and we would consider that a problem. That's insane. very well said, thank you! -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C ⠈⠳⣄ „If you don't like vaccination, try the disease.“ (Herwig Kollaritsch) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
On 22/01 08:30, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > Taking away the choice for users who care about software freedom to > opt out of non-free content in the installer and find alternative > options would be a loss of freedom, in service of convenience for > users who aren't as invested in trying to minimize their use of > non-free software. Having the option to opt-out firmware during the installation procedure seems reasonable to me, and I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise. The situation we are in today is very different though: we build a Defective by Design image that fails to install Debian on lots of computers because it does not include the firmware most WiFi cards need to function. If we were to make a mistake and accidentally include such firmware, people would be able to use what we publish on www.debian.org under the large "Download" button to install Debian on their Thinkpads, and we would consider that a problem. That's insane.
Re: Making Debian available
On 2021-01-22 06:56:27 +0100 (+0100), Emanuele Rocca wrote: > On 15/01 03:30, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > This boils down to a debate over whether the Debian community values > > convenience over ideals. > > This is not about convenience, it's about being able to install Debian > on real hardware or not. Without firmware, the installer does not do the > only thing it is supposed to do, namely installing the OS. > > Also, this is not in any way a trade-off between installing Debian and > Free Firmware. In a trade-off between A and B, if you decrease A then B > increases. If you want an ice cream and you have a coin in your pocket, > you must choose whether you want to give away the coin to get the > ice cream, or keep the coin and walk away without ice cream. > > Here we are making the installer useless without getting Free Firmware, > ie: we don't get the ice cream, and throw away the coin. As I explained in followup, my objection was that I felt it important to still have an installer which won't automatically install non-free software on my system without at least telling me what it's installing and giving me the ability to decline what I know I don't need. I was replying specifically to the assertion that an installer which automatically installs all non-free firmware/tools it thinks you *might* need based on what hardware it can see on your system "works for all users" (which could be construed by some as implying that there's no need for the other installer any longer). Taking away the choice for users who care about software freedom to opt out of non-free content in the installer and find alternative options would be a loss of freedom, in service of convenience for users who aren't as invested in trying to minimize their use of non-free software. This is the trade-off between convenience and ideals to which I refer. -- Jeremy Stanley signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 03:12:58PM -0500, Calum McConnell wrote: > Any way you can give us more info about that error? some log files, or the > exact torrent file you're seeding with (ie, upload the file itself)? > Calum Calum et al: FYI Yours Truly had a development version of the Deluged, rasterbar etc. stack, installed. Once I downgraded the BitTorrent stack to stable versions, and added the Debian Non-Free Firmware torrent files, the Debian tracker was recognized. All is well.
Re: Making Debian available
On 15/01 03:30, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > This boils down to a debate over whether the Debian community values > convenience over ideals. This is not about convenience, it's about being able to install Debian on real hardware or not. Without firmware, the installer does not do the only thing it is supposed to do, namely installing the OS. Also, this is not in any way a trade-off between installing Debian and Free Firmware. In a trade-off between A and B, if you decrease A then B increases. If you want an ice cream and you have a coin in your pocket, you must choose whether you want to give away the coin to get the ice cream, or keep the coin and walk away without ice cream. Here we are making the installer useless without getting Free Firmware, ie: we don't get the ice cream, and throw away the coin.
Re: Making Debian available
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 03:12:58PM -0500, Calum McConnell wrote: > Any way you can give us more info about that error? some log files, or the > exact torrent file you're seeding with (ie, upload the file itself)? > Calum It appears to be on my end - I tried the same torrent files on a workstation with transmission and they worked as expected. I'll have to troubleshoot on my end. Excuse the noise, deluged doesn't seem to log much information, so as of yet still unsure what has changed on the seedbox. Strange that the other torrents are working fine. Seems to something specific to Debian tracker file that this version of deluged doesn't like. Not that its the file, but more than likely the older version of deluged and/or rasterbar that I'm using. Cheers.
Re: Making Debian available
On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 11:18 -0700, Lou Poppler wrote: > On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 11:06 -0500, SDA wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 08:55:10AM -0700, Lou Poppler wrote: > > > > > > > > Got them from this url: > > > > > > > > https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/10.7.0-live+nonfree/amd64/bt-hybrid/ > > > > > > > > I'm using a VPN, surely that wouldn't make a difference? > > > > > > > > > Please keep the discussion in the mailing list -- other list > > > > > members may offer > > > > > answers that do not occur to me. Other list members will be the > > > > > ones with the > > > > > power to fix any problem that is found with the tracker or home > > > > > seeders. > > > > > > > > I would have keep it on the list if your reply-to-list was > > > > functioning. Mutt > > > > said no list found when I attempted to respond to list from your > > > > email. Not > > > > my 1st rodeo with using mutt on Debian Lists. > > > > > > > > Again, everything else in my torrent client/server works, just > > > > this tracker > > > > aint. > > > > > > I can tell you that this machine I type on is seeding one of those > > > right now. > > > > > > debian-live-10.7.0-amd64-gnome+nonfree.iso > > > > > > The status summary tells me this: > > > http://bttracker.debian.org:6969 > > > Got a list of 38 peers 1 minute ago > > > Asking for more peers in 13 minutes > > > Tracker had 45 seeders and one leechers 59 seconds ago > > > Asking for peer counts in 29 minutes. > > > > > > Can you tell us more about your software? What BT client/server are > > > you using? > > > What does your software tell you about debian's tracker and/or > > > torrents -- > > > is there some message or status, or just "doesn't work" ? It is not > > > correct > > > that there is not one seeder, at least on the one I am personally > > > seeding. > > > > Sure, I was seeding the i386 torrents for some time, and I just > > noticed they > > aren't seeding either. I have over several hundred that are seeding > > just > > fine on a deluged server. What I get is an error for this tracker > > only: > > 'Error: Invalid argument'. This is the current version of deluged, it > > runs > > 24/7 Any way you can give us more info about that error? some log files, or the exact torrent file you're seeding with (ie, upload the file itself)? Calum signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Making Debian available
On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 11:06 -0500, SDA wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 08:55:10AM -0700, Lou Poppler wrote: > > > > > > Got them from this url: > > > https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/10.7.0-live+nonfree/amd64/bt-hybrid/ > > > > > > I'm using a VPN, surely that wouldn't make a difference? > > > > > > > Please keep the discussion in the mailing list -- other list members > > > > may offer > > > > answers that do not occur to me. Other list members will be the ones > > > > with the > > > > power to fix any problem that is found with the tracker or home seeders. > > > > > > I would have keep it on the list if your reply-to-list was functioning. > > > Mutt > > > said no list found when I attempted to respond to list from your email. > > > Not > > > my 1st rodeo with using mutt on Debian Lists. > > > > > > Again, everything else in my torrent client/server works, just this > > > tracker > > > aint. > > > > I can tell you that this machine I type on is seeding one of those right > > now. > > > > debian-live-10.7.0-amd64-gnome+nonfree.iso > > > > The status summary tells me this: > > http://bttracker.debian.org:6969 > > Got a list of 38 peers 1 minute ago > > Asking for more peers in 13 minutes > > Tracker had 45 seeders and one leechers 59 seconds ago > > Asking for peer counts in 29 minutes. > > > > Can you tell us more about your software? What BT client/server are you > > using? > > What does your software tell you about debian's tracker and/or torrents -- > > is there some message or status, or just "doesn't work" ? It is not correct > > that there is not one seeder, at least on the one I am personally seeding. > > Sure, I was seeding the i386 torrents for some time, and I just noticed they > aren't seeding either. I have over several hundred that are seeding just > fine on a deluged server. What I get is an error for this tracker only: > 'Error: Invalid argument'. This is the current version of deluged, it runs > 24/7 I don't know what to tell you. I am [again, like every time] also copying this reply to the list, so they can see your latest answer. Maybe someone there can guess what you should do. Good luck.
Re: Making Debian available
On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 09:40 -0500, SDA wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 04:14:20AM -0700, Lou Poppler wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 23:46 -0500, SDA wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 08:42:02AM -0700, Lou Poppler wrote: > > > > SDA wrote: > > > > > Incidently now that this is under discussion - whomever is supplying > > > > > the > > > > > non-free live images should know that the torrents of the stable > > > > > version > > > > > aren't seeded. I was attempting to download them all to help with > > > > > seeding, > > > > > and there isn't one seeder. Could somebody pass the word along? > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > They are working from here -- I am even seeding a couple of them. > > > > I see the tracker is alive, and approx 24 seeders these: > > > > debian-live-10.7.0-i386-standard+nonfree.iso > > > > debian-live-10.7.0-amd64-gnome+nonfree.iso > > > > > > > > Which ones are you having trouble with? > > > > > > All of them. Are you using this tracker? > > > http://bttracker.debian.org:6969/announce > > > > > > > Yes I am. Please answer my question. What are the URLs from which you took > > your x.torrent files? What are the filenames? Did you verify any of > > the > > checksums? > > Checksums on the torrent files? No ... > > Got them from this url: > https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/10.7.0-live+nonfree/amd64/bt-hybrid/ > > I'm using a VPN, surely that wouldn't make a difference? > > > Please keep the discussion in the mailing list -- other list members may > > offer > > answers that do not occur to me. Other list members will be the ones with > > the > > power to fix any problem that is found with the tracker or home seeders. > > I would have keep it on the list if your reply-to-list was functioning. Mutt > said no list found when I attempted to respond to list from your email. Not > my 1st rodeo with using mutt on Debian Lists. > > Again, everything else in my torrent client/server works, just this tracker > aint. I can tell you that this machine I type on is seeding one of those right now. debian-live-10.7.0-amd64-gnome+nonfree.iso The status summary tells me this: http://bttracker.debian.org:6969 Got a list of 38 peers 1 minute ago Asking for more peers in 13 minutes Tracker had 45 seeders and one leechers 59 seconds ago Asking for peer counts in 29 minutes. Can you tell us more about your software? What BT client/server are you using? What does your software tell you about debian's tracker and/or torrents -- is there some message or status, or just "doesn't work" ? It is not correct that there is not one seeder, at least on the one I am personally seeding.
Re: Making Debian available
On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 23:46 -0500, SDA wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 08:42:02AM -0700, Lou Poppler wrote: > > SDA wrote: > > > Incidently now that this is under discussion - whomever is supplying the > > > non-free live images should know that the torrents of the stable version > > > aren't seeded. I was attempting to download them all to help with > > > seeding, > > > and there isn't one seeder. Could somebody pass the word along? Thanks! > > > > They are working from here -- I am even seeding a couple of them. > > I see the tracker is alive, and approx 24 seeders these: > > debian-live-10.7.0-i386-standard+nonfree.iso > > debian-live-10.7.0-amd64-gnome+nonfree.iso > > > > Which ones are you having trouble with? > > All of them. Are you using this tracker? > http://bttracker.debian.org:6969/announce > Yes I am. Please answer my question. What are the URLs from which you took your x.torrent files? What are the filenames? Did you verify any of the checksums? Please keep the discussion in the mailing list -- other list members may offer answers that do not occur to me. Other list members will be the ones with the power to fix any problem that is found with the tracker or home seeders. Thanks, Lou
Re: Making Debian available
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 00:28:42 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: >On Sun, 2021-01-17 at 11:31 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 10:58:33 +, "Andrew M.A. Cater" >> wrote: >> > Video drivers: we have some basic video modes that work for text mode on >> > nearly all cards / embedded chipsets. Other than that, almost everything >> > requires a non-free driver. AMD/Intel/Nvidia are all, in their own ways, >> > equally bad. Video chipsets change fairly frequently: invariably, newest >> > laptops are always a pain. >> >> I have not needed a single non-free video driver since I ditched the >> nVidia Accident that I bought in 2008 to have dual DVI output. >> >> The only non-free thing I _need_ is network/wifi firmware and >> microcode. I do not even know whethre my video cards require firmware >> downloads to work. > >Any recent GPU from AMD, Intel, or Nvidia wants non-free firmware. For >AMD hardware the amdgpu driver absolutely requires it; the others might >be semi-functional without. Ah, yes, right. That one came in invisibly because I had to enable non-free anyway for the Network. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Making Debian available
On Sun, 2021-01-17 at 11:31 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 10:58:33 +, "Andrew M.A. Cater" > wrote: > > Video drivers: we have some basic video modes that work for text mode on > > nearly all cards / embedded chipsets. Other than that, almost everything > > requires a non-free driver. AMD/Intel/Nvidia are all, in their own ways, > > equally bad. Video chipsets change fairly frequently: invariably, newest > > laptops are always a pain. > > I have not needed a single non-free video driver since I ditched the > nVidia Accident that I bought in 2008 to have dual DVI output. > > The only non-free thing I _need_ is network/wifi firmware and > microcode. I do not even know whethre my video cards require firmware > downloads to work. Any recent GPU from AMD, Intel, or Nvidia wants non-free firmware. For AMD hardware the amdgpu driver absolutely requires it; the others might be semi-functional without. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Making Debian available
SDA wrote: > Incidently now that this is under discussion - whomever is supplying the > non-free live images should know that the torrents of the stable version > aren't seeded. I was attempting to download them all to help with seeding, > and there isn't one seeder. Could somebody pass the word along? Thanks! They are working from here -- I am even seeding a couple of them. I see the tracker is alive, and approx 24 seeders these: debian-live-10.7.0-i386-standard+nonfree.iso debian-live-10.7.0-amd64-gnome+nonfree.iso Which ones are you having trouble with?
Re: Making Debian available
Incidently now that this is under discussion - whomever is supplying the non-free live images should know that the torrents of the stable version aren't seeded. I was attempting to download them all to help with seeding, and there isn't one seeder. Could somebody pass the word along? Thanks!
Re: Making Debian available - patch for webwml v2
Hi, Thomas Lange wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:37:37 +0100, Holger Wansing > > said: > > >> debian-www team: what do you think about adding some more hint/warning > >> banners pointing to firmware-including installation images? > I really like to have a hint, but warning is a too negative word. > Having those non-official images can help our users. > > > First patch attached. > I would use admon-important.png or admon-tip.png, but not admon-warning.png. > > Please let us treat non-free firmware as something positive, that our > users need for certain hardware and not use FUD when talking about > non-free firmware. Sounds good. I would vote for the 'important' class (the exclamation mark attracts more attention IMO). Patch updated. Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076 diff --git a/english/CD/http-ftp/index.wml b/english/CD/http-ftp/index.wml index d23e1c87bc8..9006f3e8bc6 100644 --- a/english/CD/http-ftp/index.wml +++ b/english/CD/http-ftp/index.wml @@ -28,6 +28,9 @@ download: Official CD/DVD images of the stable release + Unofficial CD/DVD images for stable with + non-free firmware included + https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/";>Official CD/DVD images of the testing distribution (regenerated weekly) @@ -104,6 +107,26 @@ walkthrough of the installation process. Other useful documentation includes: +Unofficial CD/DVD images with non-free firmware included + + + +If any of the hardware in your system requires non-free firmware to be +loaded with the device driver, you can use one of the +https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/buster/current/";>\ +tarballs of common firmware packages or download an unofficial image +including these non-free firmwares. Instructions how to use the tarballs +and general information about loading firmware during an installation can +be found in the Installation Guide. + + +https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/current/";>unofficial +installation images for stable with firmware included + + + + + Registered mirrors of the debian-cd archive Note that some mirrors are not up to date — diff --git a/english/CD/torrent-cd/index.wml b/english/CD/torrent-cd/index.wml index e3e5e260432..5175bab8734 100644 --- a/english/CD/torrent-cd/index.wml +++ b/english/CD/torrent-cd/index.wml @@ -74,3 +74,19 @@ walkthrough of the installation process. Other useful documentation includes: If you can, please leave your client running after your download is complete, to help others download images faster! + + + +If any of the hardware in your system requires non-free firmware to be +loaded with the device driver, you can use one of the +https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/buster/current/";>\ +tarballs of common firmware packages or download an unofficial image +including these non-free firmwares. Instructions how to use the tarballs +and general information about loading firmware during an installation can +be found in the Installation Guide. + + +https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/current/";>unofficial +installation images for stable with firmware included + + diff --git a/english/devel/debian-installer/index.wml b/english/devel/debian-installer/index.wml index ef00806e51c..d531f47b4fa 100644 --- a/english/devel/debian-installer/index.wml +++ b/english/devel/debian-installer/index.wml @@ -172,14 +172,28 @@ available version of installer components. + -If any of the hardware in your system requires firmware to be +If any of the hardware in your system requires non-free firmware to be loaded with the device driver, you can use one of the https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/";>\ -tarballs of common firmware packages. Instructions how to use the tarballs +tarballs of common firmware packages or download an unofficial image +including these non-free firmwares. Instructions how to use the tarballs and general information about loading firmware during an installation can -be found in the Installation Guide (see Documentation below). +be found in the https://d-i.debian.org/manual/";>Installation Guide. + +https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/daily-builds/sid_d-i/current/";>unofficial +images with firmware included - daily builds + + +https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/weekly-builds/";>unofficial +images with firmware included - weekly builds + + + + + Notes diff --git a/english/distrib/index.wml b/english/distrib/index.wml index 527725adb23..317409e845d 100644 --- a/english/distrib/index.wml +++ b/english/distrib/index.wml @@ -109,3 +109,19 @@ And, the release notes can be found he + + + +If any of the hardware in your system requires non-free firmware to be +loaded with the device driver, you can use one
Re: Making Debian available
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:46:30 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >Marc Haber wrote: >>No, we shouldn't, but we should drop the double standards that we >>obviously apply towards docs and firmware. > >Sorry, I'm not following you on that. Can you expand on that please? >How are we treating docs differently? I apologize. It doesn't help the current debate to open a different battlefield here. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Making Debian available
Steve McIntyre writes: > However, in the latter case Debian has shipped non-free stuff. That is > a big shift in our position. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying this > is an impossible place for us to go to. But before we do that we > should have an open and honest debate about it. I absolutely 100% agree to that! Bjørn
Re: Making Debian available
Bjørn wrote: >Steve McIntyre writes: > >> Marc Haber wrote: >>> >>>I was not aware of that feature. It is good to have that, but I would >>>be embarrassed to seriously suggest this way because we can't manage >>>to get WLAN working in the installer for political reasons. >> >> Are we seriously just going to describe our Free Software goals as >> "political reasons"? Should we just abandon them? > >FWIW, I did not read Marc that way. Fair enough. >Somehow, the Free Software goals have been interpreted to mean that >there is a difference in "free" between firmware on device internal >flash and firmware on host ssd. This makes no sense from a technical >point of view. Which makes the interpretation political if we assume >that the decision is made by otherwise sane people ignoring technical >arguments. To a simple end user, there might not be a difference. They have firmware for their device. However, in the latter case Debian has shipped non-free stuff. That is a big shift in our position. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying this is an impossible place for us to go to. But before we do that we should have an open and honest debate about it. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane
Re: Making Debian available
Marc Haber wrote: >On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:35:01 +, Steve McIntyre >wrote: >>Marc Haber wrote: >>>I was not aware of that feature. It is good to have that, but I would >>>be embarrassed to seriously suggest this way because we can't manage >>>to get WLAN working in the installer for political reasons. >> >>Are we seriously just going to describe our Free Software goals as >>"political reasons"? Should we just abandon them? > >No, we shouldn't, but we should drop the double standards that we >obviously apply towards docs and firmware. Sorry, I'm not following you on that. Can you expand on that please? How are we treating docs differently? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane
Re: Making Debian available
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:51:25 +, Stefano Rivera wrote: > Unable to find an Internet connection. > You may have a network interface that requires non-free firmware to > operate. > If you have a mobile phone connected to WiFi try plugging it in with a > USB cable and enabling "USB tethering" to share its internet > connection. You can use this to get Debian installed and then install > the non-free firmware package your network interface requires. > ... or go to ubuntu.com for a Linux OS that does work out of the box. Which is what the vast majority of users presented with this dialog will do. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Making Debian available
Hello, Debian world! [larval contributor delurking] On 18 Jan 2021, at 11:29, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > There's a major difference here - do we want Debian's *official* media > to include non-free stuff? We've had this discussion a few times, > including in person back at DC15 at least. Back then, the overwhelming > response was *no*. We can change that, but it's not something to do > lightly. > I might be reading this in, but I'm hearing this as asking "Debian's [one] official [install] media". That prompts reframing your question as "Does Debian want no Debian official install media to contain non-free stuff". If yes, then no installs happen on hardware requiring a non-free blob, and Debian knowingly loses potential install-base. (I wonder if we've data on how much this actually happens ) If no, then have official "free-only" install-media and official "has non-free" install-media, available side-by-side. Suggest people use the former, and fall back to the latter if their hardware forces that. (I speculate that realizing this might require some sort of proposal and/or policy decision?) [relurking] Thanks for suffering with my lack of clarity! Joseph —— Joseph Beckenbach
Re: Making Debian available
Steve McIntyre writes: > Marc Haber wrote: >> >>I was not aware of that feature. It is good to have that, but I would >>be embarrassed to seriously suggest this way because we can't manage >>to get WLAN working in the installer for political reasons. > > Are we seriously just going to describe our Free Software goals as > "political reasons"? Should we just abandon them? FWIW, I did not read Marc that way. Somehow, the Free Software goals have been interpreted to mean that there is a difference in "free" between firmware on device internal flash and firmware on host ssd. This makes no sense from a technical point of view. Which makes the interpretation political if we assume that the decision is made by otherwise sane people ignoring technical arguments. No one has described the Free Software goals as "political reasons". Perosnally, I believe the current Debian handling of firmware works against the Free Software goals. That should worry those who care more about those goals than the political reasons for disliking some types of hardware. Bjørn
Re: Making Debian available
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 6:27 PM Marc Haber wrote: > Imagine the catastrophal message we're sending by "here is our > official image, but that one is unlikely to work on your laptop, > better use this here." As this thread shows the current situation wrt hardware and software freedom is pretty catastrophic, I think we owe it to our users to not keep them in the dark about these issues. Probably a better way to do this is a set of "Debian Installer Launcher" apps in the various app stores that can detect your hardware, check if it needs the non-free ISO, copy any needed non-redistributable non-free drivers[1]/firmware from the original OS, warn about all the non-freeness found and the consequences of that while not offering any solution to that*, but offering to use only free software if the non-free parts are for hardware the user does not plan to use, detect what software you have already installed and the free alternatives in Debian and then download/verify/launch the appropriate Debian installer CD image with the appropriate preseeding, possibly via virtual machine interfaces so that you can do the install whilst continuing to browse the web and research better hardware options and the reasons for preferring free software. * because lets face it, there is no-one attempting to reverse engineer and replace non-free WiFi firmware any more, although there used[2] to be at least Prism54 and OpenFWWF working on that, neither of which are in Debian though and probably they and carl9170fw/ath9k_htc.fw aren't useful to have in Debian either since they are for very old WiFi chips and standards. AFAIK the only firmware reverse engineering going on is nouveau with nvidia GPUs and I believe they are now blocked by nvidia signing their blobs. Even Intel's Open Sound Firmware project doesn't allow software freedom on most devices as OEMs require Intel signatures. 1. ala ndiswrapper 2. https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware/Open -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Re: Making Debian available
On Jan 18, Marc Haber wrote: > Imagine the catastrophal message we're sending by "here is our > official image, but that one is unlikely to work on your laptop, > better use this here." Yes, it would be bad marketing. But at least we could show users something that works, so that's still better than the current situation if the self-harm faction will keep fighting for that. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available - patch for webwml
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:37:37 +0100, Holger Wansing > said: >> debian-www team: what do you think about adding some more hint/warning >> banners pointing to firmware-including installation images? I really like to have a hint, but warning is a too negative word. Having those non-official images can help our users. > First patch attached. I would use admon-important.png or admon-tip.png, but not admon-warning.png. Please let us treat non-free firmware as something positive, that our users need for certain hardware and not use FUD when talking about non-free firmware. -- regards Thomas
Re: Making Debian available
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:29:52 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >There's a major difference here - do we want Debian's *official* media >to include non-free stuff? We've had this discussion a few times, >including in person back at DC15 at least. Back then, the overwhelming >response was *no*. We can change that, but it's not something to do >lightly. Imagine the catastrophal message we're sending by "here is our official image, but that one is unlikely to work on your laptop, better use this here." People will shake their heads in disbelief and install Ubuntu. One more Ubuntu install does not do zilch for Free Software, it just helps us to hold our nose high being holier than the pope. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Making Debian available
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:05:09 +0200 (EET), Timo Lindfors wrote: >On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Marc Haber wrote: >> I remember installing Debian once from a live image because the only >> network I had available was using 802.1x. Must have been a rather >> painless experience, since I don't remember much trouble about it. > >I've also used it a couple of times. The only worry I have is that I end >up with an installation that is different from d-i installations in some >subtle way that will cause me to hit some weird bug in the future. Yes, that was also my concern, but it was the easiest way to do it in that rather rescrictive network. I still guess that they were trying to test me as it was on my very first day with a new customer. I was however unlikely to need my workstation installation as reference as they used to be a CentOS shop anyway. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Making Debian available
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:35:01 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >Marc Haber wrote: >>I was not aware of that feature. It is good to have that, but I would >>be embarrassed to seriously suggest this way because we can't manage >>to get WLAN working in the installer for political reasons. > >Are we seriously just going to describe our Free Software goals as >"political reasons"? Should we just abandon them? No, we shouldn't, but we should drop the double standards that we obviously apply towards docs and firmware. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Making Debian available
Hi Andrey (2021.01.17_13:16:04_+) > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:33:28AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > > My workaround is to plug in a network cable for installation. But > > alas, I have up to now been able to avoid hardware without built-in > > Ethernet. I guess that many USB Ethernet interfaces will work out of > > the box without non-free, right? > I think people on Reddit usually recommend USB-tethering the cell phone. This is a useful trick to know, and has served me well for many years. But, assuming this is the best option we can provide for a user, it should be more than a trick - the installer should probably suggest it. Something along the lines of: Unable to find an Internet connection. You may have a network interface that requires non-free firmware to operate. If you have a mobile phone connected to WiFi try plugging it in with a USB cable and enabling "USB tethering" to share its internet connection. You can use this to get Debian installed and then install the non-free firmware package your network interface requires. SR -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ +1 415 683 3272
Re: Making Debian available
On 2021-01-18 16:35:01 + (+), Steve McIntyre wrote: > Marc Haber wrote: > > > >I was not aware of that feature. It is good to have that, but I would > >be embarrassed to seriously suggest this way because we can't manage > >to get WLAN working in the installer for political reasons. > > Are we seriously just going to describe our Free Software goals as > "political reasons"? Should we just abandon them? Some (and I would argue the most cumbersome) challenges around WLAN support are governmental. Countries where "software radios" cannot legally allow the consumer to alter their frequencies, for example. I would also refer to those as "political reasons" even if they're not directly tied to the politics of software freedom within Debian. And yes, governments telling vendors that they're breaking the law and can be fined or put out of business for allowing their users to alter the way a device functions is still a software freedom concern, just one over which Debian may hold little sway. -- Jeremy Stanley signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 04:35:01PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >I was not aware of that feature. It is good to have that, but I would > >be embarrassed to seriously suggest this way because we can't manage > >to get WLAN working in the installer for political reasons. > > Are we seriously just going to describe our Free Software goals as > "political reasons"? Well, "free software is inherently political", isn't it? > Should we just abandon them? If nothing useful comes from them then you indeed need to decide. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
[ Catching up on this thread a little late... ] Ansgar wrote: >On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 15:30 +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> On 2021-01-15 12:11:06 +0100 (+0100), Emanuele Rocca wrote: >> [...] >> > So the current situation is that we make an active effort to >> > produce two different types of installation media: one that works >> > for all users, and one broken for most laptops. >> [...] >> >> The one you say "works for all users" doesn't "work" for me because >> it contains proprietary closed-source software I don't want. > >Then don't install them? > >Debian's Social Contract states "We encourage CD manufacturers to read >the licenses of the packages in these areas [non-free & contrib] and >determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs." Maybe we >should do that for the CD images we manufacture? :) There's a major difference here - do we want Debian's *official* media to include non-free stuff? We've had this discussion a few times, including in person back at DC15 at least. Back then, the overwhelming response was *no*. We can change that, but it's not something to do lightly. We *can* do a better job of pointing people at the media with non-free firmware included. I've added a few more links in various places, but IMHO we desperately need a better set of download (etc.) pages rather than just bodging changes in to the existing inadequate pages. See #819664, for example. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane
Re: Making Debian available
Marc Haber wrote: > >I was not aware of that feature. It is good to have that, but I would >be embarrassed to seriously suggest this way because we can't manage >to get WLAN working in the installer for political reasons. Are we seriously just going to describe our Free Software goals as "political reasons"? Should we just abandon them? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane
Re: Making Debian available
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Marc Haber wrote: My understanding is that the live images are primarily intended for the typical "live system" use-case descended from things like Knoppix (boot machine from USB stick or optical media; use machine with OS from RAM, USB stick or optical media; shut down machine; no trace is left), with permanent installation via Calamares being considered somewhat experimental. Ah indeed. My comment was a more abstract observation: if you can run the installer in a more familiar environment it is easier for users. I did not intend to say anything about the current state of any package or team. I remember installing Debian once from a live image because the only network I had available was using 802.1x. Must have been a rather painless experience, since I don't remember much trouble about it. I've also used it a couple of times. The only worry I have is that I end up with an installation that is different from d-i installations in some subtle way that will cause me to hit some weird bug in the future. I had similar problems with virt-install. I had to add all sorts of extra hacks to produce installations that were as identical to manual installations as possible. https://lindi.iki.fi/lindi/debian10/server has my notes on how to do this with a server and https://lindi.iki.fi/lindi/debian10/ is an attempt to do it for desktop as well. Basically I first installed debian manually. Then I automated it and tweaked preseed and a custom shell script until the filesystem difference was minimal.
Re: Making Debian available
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:38:59 +, Simon McVittie wrote: >On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 09:39:05 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: >> The pointers to the Debian image on the Debian front page (and the >> discussion >> about standard/installer with firmware) relate to the non-live Debian >> installer. >> >> If we want the Calamares image to include firmware - that's a matter for >> debian-live, I think. > >https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/ >seems to include both d-i images and live images that have the non-free >firmware included, if I'm reading correctly. > >My understanding is that the live images are primarily intended for >the typical "live system" use-case descended from things like Knoppix >(boot machine from USB stick or optical media; use machine with OS from >RAM, USB stick or optical media; shut down machine; no trace is left), >with permanent installation via Calamares being considered somewhat >experimental. I remember installing Debian once from a live image because the only network I had available was using 802.1x. Must have been a rather painless experience, since I don't remember much trouble about it. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Making Debian available
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 09:39:05 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > The pointers to the Debian image on the Debian front page (and the discussion > about standard/installer with firmware) relate to the non-live Debian > installer. > > If we want the Calamares image to include firmware - that's a matter for > debian-live, I think. https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/ seems to include both d-i images and live images that have the non-free firmware included, if I'm reading correctly. My understanding is that the live images are primarily intended for the typical "live system" use-case descended from things like Knoppix (boot machine from USB stick or optical media; use machine with OS from RAM, USB stick or optical media; shut down machine; no trace is left), with permanent installation via Calamares being considered somewhat experimental. smcv
Re: Making Debian available - patch for webwml
[ Now added debian-boot to CC, since a page included in the attached patch is ] [ under their responsibility ] Holger Wansing wrote: > [ Adding debian-www to the loop ] > > Hi, > > Marc Haber wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 01:53:24 +, Paul Wise wrote: > > >On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:52 PM Russell Stuart wrote: > > > > > >> Testing doesn't produce netinst with non-free firmware > > > > > >There are both daily and weekly testing netinsts with firmware: > > > > > >https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/daily-builds/sid_d-i/current/amd64/iso-cd/ > > >https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/weekly-builds/amd64/iso-cd/ > > > > We should really at least mention them somewhere. We're losing > > installations each day because they are so hard to find. > > So, to turn this discussion into a real change: > > debian-www team: what do you think about adding some more hint/warning > banners pointing to firmware-including installation images? > > We already have one at > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/ > > So we could also add it to other pages (and re-use the translations as well): > https://www.debian.org/distrib/ > https://www.debian.org/distrib/netinst > https://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/ > https://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/ > > Of course it's not optimal to be forced to add it to so many pages, > but the restructuring of the download / "getting-debian" section is > already on the agenda, so in the long term we can hopefully reduce the amount > of pages with that warning back to a low number like 2 or 3? > > The above is for stable. > We could also do similar for the testing firmware-including images > (that's probably the more important part, since there is no mention of such > images at all on the website). > > > Should I try to work out a proposal/patch? First patch attached. For an easy overview of how that might look like, I have uploaded some patched html pages to people.debian.org: https://people.debian.org/~holgerw/webwml_non-free-firmware/english/distrib/index.en.html https://people.debian.org/~holgerw/webwml_non-free-firmware/english/distrib/netinst.en.html https://people.debian.org/~holgerw/webwml_non-free-firmware/english/CD/http-ftp/index.en.html https://people.debian.org/~holgerw/webwml_non-free-firmware/english/CD/torrent-cd/index.en.html https://people.debian.org/~holgerw/webwml_non-free-firmware/english/devel/debian-installer/index.en.html (relative links inside of debian.org do not work there) Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076 diff --git a/english/CD/http-ftp/index.wml b/english/CD/http-ftp/index.wml index d23e1c87bc8..c535a0dfe07 100644 --- a/english/CD/http-ftp/index.wml +++ b/english/CD/http-ftp/index.wml @@ -28,6 +28,9 @@ download: Official CD/DVD images of the stable release + Unofficial CD/DVD images for stable with + non-free firmware included + https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/";>Official CD/DVD images of the testing distribution (regenerated weekly) @@ -104,6 +107,26 @@ walkthrough of the installation process. Other useful documentation includes: +Unofficial CD/DVD images with non-free firmware included + + + +If any of the hardware in your system requires non-free firmware to be +loaded with the device driver, you can use one of the +https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/buster/current/";>\ +tarballs of common firmware packages or download an unofficial image +including these non-free firmwares. Instructions how to use the tarballs +and general information about loading firmware during an installation can +be found in the Installation Guide. + + +https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/current/";>unofficial +installation images for stable with firmware included + + + + + Registered mirrors of the debian-cd archive Note that some mirrors are not up to date — diff --git a/english/CD/torrent-cd/index.wml b/english/CD/torrent-cd/index.wml index e3e5e260432..78d174ada22 100644 --- a/english/CD/torrent-cd/index.wml +++ b/english/CD/torrent-cd/index.wml @@ -74,3 +74,19 @@ walkthrough of the installation process. Other useful documentation includes: If you can, please leave your client running after your download is complete, to help others download images faster! + + + +If any of the hardware in your system requires non-free firmware to be +loaded with the device driver, you can use one of the +https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/buster/current/";>\ +tarballs of common firmware packages or download an unofficial image +including these non-free firmwares. Instructions how to use the tarballs +and general information about loading firmware during an installation can +be found in the Installation Guide. + + +https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-i
Re: Making Debian available
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:57:31AM +0100, Holger Wansing wrote: > Hi, > > Timo Lindfors wrote: > > > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021, Marc Haber wrote: > > > Absolutely. The Installation Experience is one of the first contacts > > > with the distribution for most people¹, and since we all know that the > > > > Yep. I think using the live environment for installation could be more > > user-friendly as the user is already familiar with how to use e.g. USB > > drive or > > browser during the installation if they need to search for help or copy > > some additional firmware files. The number of people who know how to do > > this in the current d-i images is much lower since you'd need to use the > > command-line with a really restricted set of tools. > > Hmm, AFAICS the calamares installer does not include functionality to > pull non-free firmware. > At least I cannot see a checkbox or similar, where to activate/deactivate > such feature / where to enable non-free... > *The* Debian installer is the original text/gtk installer, if you will and is the installer most of us use to install Debian. The debian images team maintain this on Debian images and it's the installer updated with every point release. The Calamares installer is a cross-distro installer. It is maintained by the debian-live team (currently highvoltage and others, I think).We know that the Calamares installer can be problematic for low memory installs. The pointers to the Debian image on the Debian front page (and the discussion about standard/installer with firmware) relate to the non-live Debian installer. If we want the Calamares image to include firmware - that's a matter for debian-live, I think. Andy C > Or did I miss something? > > > Holger > > > -- > Holger Wansing > PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076 >
Re: Making Debian available
Hi, Timo Lindfors wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021, Marc Haber wrote: > > Absolutely. The Installation Experience is one of the first contacts > > with the distribution for most people¹, and since we all know that the > > Yep. I think using the live environment for installation could be more > user-friendly as the user is already familiar with how to use e.g. USB drive > or > browser during the installation if they need to search for help or copy > some additional firmware files. The number of people who know how to do > this in the current d-i images is much lower since you'd need to use the > command-line with a really restricted set of tools. Hmm, AFAICS the calamares installer does not include functionality to pull non-free firmware. At least I cannot see a checkbox or similar, where to activate/deactivate such feature / where to enable non-free... Or did I miss something? Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Re: Making Debian available
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021, Marc Haber wrote: Absolutely. The Installation Experience is one of the first contacts with the distribution for most people¹, and since we all know that the Yep. I think using the live environment for installation could be more user-friendly as the user is already familiar with how to use e.g. USB drive or browser during the installation if they need to search for help or copy some additional firmware files. The number of people who know how to do this in the current d-i images is much lower since you'd need to use the command-line with a really restricted set of tools.
Re: Making Debian available
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 06:52:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > I was not aware of that feature. It is good to have that, but I would > be embarrassed to seriously suggest this way because we can't manage > to get WLAN working in the installer for political reasons. Indeed, hence the more serious suggestion of "use the non-free ISO". -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 13:22:25 +, "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: >On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:36:58AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 10:58:33 +, "Andrew M.A. Cater" >> wrote: >> >It already does: the second or third question gives you the option to >> >install >> > non-free firmware, if needed, from a USB stick. That method does work but >> >very few people use it. >> >> I have seen a site with thousands of Debian installations migrating >> away from Debian to CentOS because a new generation of server hardware >> would have needed netboot images with built-in firmware. Management >> considered the operation I did on the image to make it work "black >> wizardry" and decided that they wouldnt want to do that every time an >> operating system update is released and ordered migrated away from >> Debian instead. >> >They might now be reconsidering: as noted on the Beowulf list. I had a similar >smaller scale experience. As far as I know they're currently negotiating for RHEL. Red Hat should be at least giving us a thank-you note. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Making Debian available
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 18:02:38 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: >On 17.01.21 14:19, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 18:16:04 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin >> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:33:28AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: My workaround is to plug in a network cable for installation. But alas, I have up to now been able to avoid hardware without built-in Ethernet. I guess that many USB Ethernet interfaces will work out of the box without non-free, right? >>> I think people on Reddit usually recommend USB-tethering the cell phone. >> That works for IP? > >I'm not sure what the question here is. You get NAT. You even get NAT to >your WiFi - i.e. you can use it as a glorified USB WiFi device (at least >with Android). I have successfully either fixed or installed Debian >through a cell phone in the past because there was no other way at hand. I was not aware of that feature. It is good to have that, but I would be embarrassed to seriously suggest this way because we can't manage to get WLAN working in the installer for political reasons. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Making Debian available
On 17.01.21 14:19, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 18:16:04 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin > wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:33:28AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >>> My workaround is to plug in a network cable for installation. But >>> alas, I have up to now been able to avoid hardware without built-in >>> Ethernet. I guess that many USB Ethernet interfaces will work out of >>> the box without non-free, right? >> I think people on Reddit usually recommend USB-tethering the cell phone. > That works for IP? I'm not sure what the question here is. You get NAT. You even get NAT to your WiFi - i.e. you can use it as a glorified USB WiFi device (at least with Android). I have successfully either fixed or installed Debian through a cell phone in the past because there was no other way at hand. Kind regards Philipp Kern
Re: Making Debian available
On Sunday, January 17, 2021 6:06:15 AM EST Bjørn Mork wrote: > All these USB devices work only because they come with firmware on a largish > flash. That's not the complete case. Of the modern libre USB WiFi dongles I know of, carl9170 (firmware for AR9170 chips) is included in firmware-linux-free and should be in the installer. These devices are a little older, but support 802.11n and even dual-band 2.4GHz/5GHz connectivity for some. The newer flagship chips for USB wireless dongles, ath9k_htc (AR7010/AR9271), have libre firmware released by Qualcomm Atheros upon request of ThinkPenguin, their employees, and other interested parties. This firmware isn't included in the installer or installed by default with firmware-linux-free yet, but is provided by the firmware-ath9k-htc package I maintain. A takeaway from Theo de Raadt and the OpenBSD Project's successes on wireless devices is that it doesn't hurt to ask. IMHO, a message in the Debian Installer should be clear to place blame on the device manufacturers, something I don't think the current message about nonfree firmware emphasizes, signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Making Debian available
On Jan 15, Emanuele Rocca wrote: > So the current situation is that we make an active effort to produce two > different types of installation media: one that works for all users, and > one broken for most laptops. Some sort of FOSS version of an > anti-feature. Then we publish the broken version on the front page, and > hide very carefully the version that works. > > This absurdly damages our users without improving the state of Free > Software in any way, while Ubuntu puts the firmware back into the images > and can rightly claim to be easier to install. Since I already wrote about all this in 2004 and before, I am not going to repeat myself in this thread: http://blog.bofh.it/id_33 . It was as much obvious then and it still is now. Hopefully at this time there will be less DFSG-revisionists around so that we can reach a different outcome. (And again, "editorial changes" weren't.) -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian available
[ Adding debian-www to the loop ] Hi, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 01:53:24 +, Paul Wise wrote: > >On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:52 PM Russell Stuart wrote: > > > >> Testing doesn't produce netinst with non-free firmware > > > >There are both daily and weekly testing netinsts with firmware: > > > >https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/daily-builds/sid_d-i/current/amd64/iso-cd/ > >https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/weekly-builds/amd64/iso-cd/ > > We should really at least mention them somewhere. We're losing > installations each day because they are so hard to find. So, to turn this discussion into a real change: debian-www team: what do you think about adding some more hint/warning banners pointing to firmware-including installation images? We already have one at https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/ So we could also add it to other pages (and re-use the translations as well): https://www.debian.org/distrib/ https://www.debian.org/distrib/netinst https://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/ https://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/ Of course it's not optimal to be forced to add it to so many pages, but the restructuring of the download / "getting-debian" section is already on the agenda, so in the long term we can hopefully reduce the amount of pages with that warning back to a low number like 2 or 3? The above is for stable. We could also do similar for the testing firmware-including images (that's probably the more important part, since there is no mention of such images at all on the website). Should I try to work out a proposal/patch? Or is there another plan for these issues already? Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Re: Making Debian available
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:36:58AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 10:58:33 +, "Andrew M.A. Cater" > wrote: > >It already does: the second or third question gives you the option to install > > non-free firmware, if needed, from a USB stick. That method does work but > >very few people use it. > > I have seen a site with thousands of Debian installations migrating > away from Debian to CentOS because a new generation of server hardware > would have needed netboot images with built-in firmware. Management > considered the operation I did on the image to make it work "black > wizardry" and decided that they wouldnt want to do that every time an > operating system update is released and ordered migrated away from > Debian instead. > They might now be reconsidering: as noted on the Beowulf list. I had a similar smaller scale experience. Interestingly: di-netboot-assistant has a toggle switch to include firmware or not. > This still brings me in a state of mental turmoil between rage and > sadness. > > Greetings > Marc > -- > -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - > Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header > Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | > Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834 >
Re: Making Debian available
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 18:16:04 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:33:28AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> My workaround is to plug in a network cable for installation. But >> alas, I have up to now been able to avoid hardware without built-in >> Ethernet. I guess that many USB Ethernet interfaces will work out of >> the box without non-free, right? >I think people on Reddit usually recommend USB-tethering the cell phone. That works for IP? Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
