Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
* On 2015 03 Jun 11:33 -0500, Renaud OLGIATI wrote: On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:25:42 -0300 hellekin helle...@dyne.org wrote: the official Devuan network installer should not, IMO, support this case. It is not against users, but against manufacturers. So you want to punish users, for the sins of manufacturers ? I doubt that hellekin really does, but that is the practical outcome. In my own case I have not bought a new computer since 1993 and that was a white box 386DX40 sans hard disk or OS. All of my purchases since have either been components or second hand from eBay. I do research the hardware and try to make the most appropriate choice. However, I did goof a bit when I bought my T410 laptop with intel wireless that requires a non-free blob. The wired port worked straight from the Debian installer. Had I chosen another second hand model that used an Atheros chipset, for example, my choice would not have affected Lenovo in the least as they already made the first sale to someone else. Other people are looking to transition from XP or Windows 7 and want to use their existing hardware. They're not buying new hardware with a Free OS in mind, they're looking for something that supports what they already have, which is far more sustainable IMO, and an approach that Debian seems to no longer take too seriously any more otherwise the installer would not have fallen victim to the pedants. I understand and respect the opinions expressed by hellekin and others arguing against non-free in the installer, yet I am moved by the hoops that others, who are just looking for an alternative to breathe new life into their hardware, must jump through when a critical piece of hardware is not supported out of the box. I am all for urging the market to support Free drivers and when I make a new hardware purchase, which is seldom any more, I apply those principles. But to those who have yet to understand the idealism of Free Software, intentional removal of hardware support by Debian's installer was just more grist for the mill that Linux is/is not _. Here I am only talking about the blobs released as part of the kernel source tarball. Any drivers/blobs that exist outside of that tarball should never be a part of the installer, IMO. - Nate -- The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true. Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On 03/06/2015 19:50, Vince Mulhollon wrote: Just be careful, the assumption is the user is the installer is the buyer, and frankly most of the machines I've installed in the last 20 years, that has not been the case. My point exactly, and my apology for entertaining the confusion with a poor choice of words. -- Laurent ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 12:45 +0100, KatolaZ wrote: On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote: I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. My two cents on this point: I would really prefer *not* having any non-free software/firmware in the default Devuan install. I have a position that appears out of the mainstream here but afraid I have to say that Fedora has the right policy on this issue. Non-free software: NO, Firmware: YES. So ixnay on things like the Nvidia drivers but yes on blobs. The reasoning on where to draw the line is pretty clear cut. If it comes down to the vendor shaving ten cents to save a serial eeprom, put the danged blob on the install media if the vendor allows unlimited redistribution. Doubly so for the blobs required to get connected to the network in the first place. But a closed driver polluting the kernel is right out. And no fair putting the non-free repo a single click away, they force all of the problem packages out to rpmfusion and do not even permit discussion of its existence on any official fora. Debian always has seemed to get this exactly wrong, creating pointless annoyance for the users while selling out the free software principles they yell so loudly about. They pretend to be RMS pure but make the non-free repos with all of the unfree crap a single install option away; but won't include the blobs on the install media to make that option meaningful if your problematic hardware is the network adapter. So in the end it makes Nvidia video, Adobe Flash and other horrid closed abominations easy to install and keep updated but a firmware blob that runs entirely outside of the CPU's address space stops install cold. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On 2015-06-03 13:43, KatolaZ wrote: On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 05:24:30AM -0700, James Powell wrote: [cut] Should it be default added, no, but offered for choice? Absolutely. But how far this should/will go? After having offered the possibility of bringing in non-free firmware during the installation, shall devuan also offer to install non-free drivers for your video card? And what about flash plugins then, or Skype? The end user might want to choose them, so should we offer her/him to install them? This was indeed the Ubuntu-way of dealing with non-free software, and I personally don't like it at all. I would rather prefer having a clear, neat and discernable separation between what is free software and what is not, as in Debian, and to have by default only free software available, with non-free stuff in a separate repo which requires separate and explicit setup to work. Totally agree. +1 -- al3xu5 / dotcommon Say NO to any copyright, patents and industrial design restrictions. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Secure boot?
Nobody yet knows how many Windows 10 compliant manufacturers will eliminate the off-switch for Secure Boot. Could be 90%, for all we know. If we don't support secure boot hardware, we're telling people not to use Linux on commodity off the shelf hardware. Pay double for System76. Won't be well received. We need *some* way to run on secure-boot-only hardware. I agree entirely, but I just want to add that last year I bought a new laptop and went specifically looking for a machine that did NOT have Windows pre-installed. I found a Toshiba Satellite C50-B with no OS on the hard drive. Reasonable price too - if I had wanted Windows it would have been an additional US$100. That's the good news. The bad is that I live in Taiwan, home of Acer and ASUS, I could not find a single laptop made by those manufacturers without pre-installed Windows. It was ironic that I had to buy an imported Japanese computer rather than a domestically produced one, though in this case there was little difference in price since the US$100 I saved by not buying a Windows license put the Toshiba into the same price range as Acer and ASUS machines with the same specs. Of course, the vast majority of the laptops sold in the world come with with Windows pre-installed, so Devuan has to support some kind of solution that works for all those machines. regards, Robert ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 22:06 +, alexus / dotcommon wrote: On 2015-06-03 13:43, KatolaZ wrote: On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 05:24:30AM -0700, James Powell wrote: Should it be default added, no, but offered for choice? Absolutely. My vote: Default: No! Offered for choice: Yes (in some convenient format). ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:08:52 -0400 Hendrik Boom hend...@topoi.pooq.com wrote: Now, the base installer is such a vector of individuation, as Debian 8 demonstrated by using it to install systemd. Systemd is free software, but we don't like it to be installed by default. Now we would frown at it and happily include non-free software in our base installer? I really don't see the point. Again, that people buy hardware requiring non-free software to run is a problem, but that problem does not need to be ignored and dismissed, it needs to be confronted and fixed. It can be quite difficult to find out whether a piece of hardware you're considering buying requires nonfree drivers. Not only that, but with video, wifi, ethernet, mouse, and who knows what other hardware, the chances of *all* the hardware being free and open is low. Unless you want to pay double for System76. SteveT Steve Litt June 2015 featured book: The Key to Everyday Excellence http://www.troubleshooters.com/key ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:37:22 +1200 Daniel Reurich dan...@centurion.net.nz wrote: Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. So that people should fork Devuan to get a truly free system by default? It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one that shows we care about the end users. Hum... This sounds very strange to me... I was thinking having care about end users should mean help to avoid non-free software (not to use it by default), particularly if it deals with non-free blobbed firmware which have heavy implications in terms of privacy, tracking and surveillance... Regards -- al3xu5 / dotcommon Say NO to any copyright, trademarks, patents and industrial design restrictions. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Secure boot?
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 10:58:15 -0400 Gregory Boyce gregory.bo...@gmail.com wrote: 2) Don't support booting on secure boot systems. This means users are out of luck if they have secure boot hardware unless they're able to disable that feature. Nobody yet knows how many Windows 10 compliant manufacturers will eliminate the off-switch for Secure Boot. Could be 90%, for all we know. If we don't support secure boot hardware, we're telling people not to use Linux on commodity off the shelf hardware. Pay double for System76. Won't be well received. We need *some* way to run on secure-boot-only hardware. SteveT Steve Litt June 2015 featured book: The Key to Everyday Excellence http://www.troubleshooters.com/key ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] DistroWatch review of Manjaro-OpenRC
Good review. Testing it tomorrow. El 2015-06-01 00:11, Robert Storey escribió: Now that Ubuntu and Debian have decided to go over to the Dark Side ... Feedback on the story is welcome (even negative feedback). regards, Robert -- Saludos cordiales, Ángel Ramírez Isea. Usuario de Devuan y Canaima GNU / Linux # 460737. Coordinador General. Cooperativa Simón Rodríguez para el Conocimiento Libre, RS. www.simonrodriguez.org.ve (261) 524.55.93 -:- (426) 369.57.18 J-40294137-4 ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
+1 for making this an option in the installer, deselected by default. I like the idea of having a means to explicitly opt-in for non-free firmware at install time for convenience, but not such firmware being forced into the installation. The freedom of choice thingy, revisited. Cheers, Urban Anto wrote on 03.06.2015 11:48: On 03/06/15 10:37, Daniel Reurich wrote: I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. I prefer that all non-free packages including the firmwares to be excluded in the default installer. However, it would be great if there were options to select them during installation process. Otherwise, I will choose them later after the base installation is completed, which I usually do. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
Urban, Anto It's only a convenience thing for the net-installer as it's a real pain to have to go hunting for a third party iso just to get the installer running becuase of a network card requiring non-free firmware. I think it would be good to warn and give an option of installing the non-free firmware. Code submissions of course are welcome :D Daniel. On 03/06/15 22:15, Irrwahn wrote: +1 for making this an option in the installer, deselected by default. I like the idea of having a means to explicitly opt-in for non-free firmware at install time for convenience, but not such firmware being forced into the installation. The freedom of choice thingy, revisited. Cheers, Urban Anto wrote on 03.06.2015 11:48: On 03/06/15 10:37, Daniel Reurich wrote: I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. I prefer that all non-free packages including the firmwares to be excluded in the default installer. However, it would be great if there were options to select them during installation process. Otherwise, I will choose them later after the base installation is completed, which I usually do. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng -- Daniel Reurich Centurion Computer Technology (2005) Ltd. 021 797 722 ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On 06/03/2015 06:15 AM, Irrwahn wrote: +1 for making this an option in the installer, deselected by default. I like the idea of having a means to explicitly opt-in for non-free firmware at install time for convenience, but not such firmware being forced into the installation. The freedom of choice thingy, revisited. Cheers, Urban +1 Freedom of choice, but let them know that their choice makes baby kitten angels cry. ~jaret ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote: I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. If we were ok with unmodifiable undebuggable unfixable software, we'd be using Windows. -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote: Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one that shows we care about the end users. My two cents on this point: I would really prefer *not* having any non-free software/firmware in the default Devuan install. HND KatolaZ -- [ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ] [ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ] [ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ] ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one that shows we care about the end users. Keen for feedback. -- Daniel Reurich Centurion Computer Technology (2005) Ltd. 021 797 722 ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
Yes. And explicitly say that the decision may be reverted later, if that fight seems winnable. It's best to pick one's fights. Arnt ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[Dng] Secure boot?
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote: Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. While we're at it, what do we do about the so-called secure boot, which seems like a threat on most of the modern machines we have to install on. I'm currently shaking in my boots, so to speak, whenever I think that someday I might have to replace my laptop. -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
If the firmware aids in compatibility and driver support then yes, include it. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Arnt Gulbrandsenmailto:a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no Sent: 6/3/2015 1:50 AM To: dng@lists.dyne.orgmailto:dng@lists.dyne.org; Daniel Reurichmailto:dan...@centurion.net.nz Subject: Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers Yes. And explicitly say that the decision may be reverted later, if that fight seems winnable. It's best to pick one's fights. Arnt ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On 03/06/15 10:37, Daniel Reurich wrote: Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one that shows we care about the end users. Keen for feedback. Hello Daniel, Is there any web site where I can cast my vote on? If there was none, then I cast my vote here. I prefer that all non-free packages including the firmwares to be excluded in the default installer. However, it would be great if there were options to select them during installation process. Otherwise, I will choose them later after the base installation is completed, which I usually do. Cheers, Anto ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote: If we were ok with unmodifiable undebuggable unfixable software, we'd be using Windows. Thought that was lead in to a new systemd joke right up till the last word. Not bad, not bad at all. Firmware is analogous to ADA compliance stuff for handicapped people. Is non-free firmware obviously damaged goods? Yes, being very blunt about it. Does anyone really benefit by making an already difficult life intentionally even harder? No. So... make it available. Taking away the free software wheelchair ramp doesn't make life any better for anyone, even if it makes some architectural fundamentalists microscopically happier (well, the Parthenon doesn't have wheelchair ramps, so neither should we, if we want equally good clean design). Whats worse, intentionally preventing wheelchair users from visiting the Parthenon or intentionally installing a slightly ugly wheelchair ramp on the Parthenon? You can always take the ramp out later if necessary, but if you take away someones experience you can never really make it right later. Minimization of overall total harm. That doesn't mean non-free software is good any more than installing a wheel chair ramp means getting your legs chopped off is good. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On 06/03/2015 04:37 AM, Daniel Reurich wrote: Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one that shows we care about the end users. Keen for feedback. I like the well drawn line in the sand for non-free software, but think it almost has to be an initial menu choice on at least some version of the install media. Otherwise I believe the possibility exists for a Catch 22 situation where you may have the choice to download non-free firmware blobs, but without said blobs the hardware you need to actually perform the download does not function. It is a sad situation, but one that needs recognition. Clarke ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Announcing i386 netboot iso for Devuan (Alpha 2)
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:12:01AM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote: You can find it at: http://packages.devuan.org/alpha-iso-cd/devuan-jessie-netboot-i386-alpha2.iso Great! I installed successfully to some degree. Known issues: * if 'standard utilities' are left selected in task-select the installation step fails (dependency conflict between nfs-common and libdevmapper) In Software Selection, there is a heading Debian Desktop Environment followed by specific environments. I wanted no desktop environment (I rely on just the fluxbox window manager) and so did not select the Debian Desktop Environment and installed xorg and fluxbox after booting the virtual machine. Should that first line in Software Selection have been named X windows system instead of desktop environment? ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] Secure boot?
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Hendrik Boom hend...@topoi.pooq.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote: Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. While we're at it, what do we do about the so-called secure boot, which seems like a threat on most of the modern machines we have to install on. I'm currently shaking in my boots, so to speak, whenever I think that someday I might have to replace my laptop. I'm not sure what would need to be done there at the distro level. There's two options: 1) Support booting on secure boot systems. This likely means using a signed shim bootloader. 2) Don't support booting on secure boot systems. This means users are out of luck if they have secure boot hardware unless they're able to disable that feature. Not supporting secure boot seems worse to me, although it's probably in the same category as not allowing non-free firmware. It limits user choice in the name of Freedom. -- Greg ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:39:21PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote: I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. If we were ok with unmodifiable undebuggable unfixable software, we'd be using Windows. Sometimes it's a question of alternatives. (a) On some systems there may be none. (b) On some systems the free alternatives may have unacceptble performance. Of course, 'unacceptable' fot the installer differs from 'unacceptable' for the end use. (c) Finally, one may be willing to put up with unmodifiable undebuggable unfixable software knowing that if it ever becomes a problem, one can replace it by a (possibly less performant) free alternative. And one might still, even though one accepts a small amount of nonfree software, went to eschew Windows, which is *all* nonfree. I do not even know whether there are nonfree drivers running on my Debian Jessie machine. I do know that everything on it can be driven with free drivers, and that if the nonfree drivers ever become nonfunctional, and are consequently dropped from Debian (and its derivatives), there will be a clean transition to free ones. My laptop was the *first* ASUS EEEPC that could run without proprietary drivers (even though it was sold with Windows preinstalled). I refused to buy the earlier models, even though they had Linux preinstalled, because there was a good chance that the nonfree drivers might not survive significant kernel upgrades. -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
Am Mittwoch, 3. Juni 2015 schrieb James Powell: While keeping to the libre creed is nice, at least having the option for firmware will help compatibility with hardware that requires it. Sadly, this is becoming more commonplace as newer hardware is released. More and more modern hardware requires firmware. The question isn't about including it, but better reworded... Should Devuan have an option for installing non-free firmware to support hardware that requires it, at the initial installation to promote more system hardware compatibility? I think it should offer the option, because at least it can show people installing Devuan that Devuan aims to support your hardware out of the box of sorts. Should it be default added, no, but offered for choice? Absolutely. Please let us distingush between non free drivers and firmware. Firmware runs on some device seperate from the OS, while drivers are part of the OS. And firmware is by definition a binary blob that used to be stored on some EEPROM in times long past. Nowaday these blobs get pushed into the devices RAM by the host system - good for marketing as stuff gets cheeper but you can't just use these devices when you harvest a junk yard. You will most likely not even be able to set up a working toolchain to build firmware - just check how much effort is needed to keep etherboot and coreboot useable. Nik -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On 06/03/2015 05:53 AM, James Powell wrote: If the firmware aids in compatibility and driver support then yes, include it. *** I think non-free anything should not be included by default. For the sake of universality, they should be available to people who actually need them. Many people will expect non-free drivers to be readily available during installation, and they'd be right to do so. Not because such hardware should be supported, but because most of the time, users do not have control over the production of hardware (nor the consumption: good hardware is less readily available than bad one.) As Devuan offers a pretty easy and automated way to make a custom build, maybe we should take advantage of this, and provide a way for downloading non-free blobs during install, after the detection was made. This way would at least make users aware of the problem. Moreover, this would enable surveying what non-free software sneak in our machines on a large scale and help fight this situation. If we just tuck in non-free drivers in the default installer, we make it normal to surrender our rights to hardware manufacturers. On the contrary, we should expose them*. Some people will not have this kind of ethical dilemma and will happily burn a modified Devuan version with all the malware tucked in. And it's good they do, because in some cases that means the machine will run at all. But for the sake of Devuan, I wish we did not provide that product ourselves for it should be the proprietary software and hardware vendors-defectors who should provide for their own needs, and not the cooperative community. == hk *: it would be awesome if we could simply feed the h-node.org database automatically to report working and failing components automatically. -- _ _ We are free to share code and we code to share freedom (_X_)yne Foundation, Free Culture Foundry * https://www.dyne.org/donate/ ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On June 3, 2015 at 7:39 AM Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote: On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote: I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. If we were ok with unmodifiable undebuggable unfixable software, we'd be using Windows. +1 Peter Olson (apologies if this duplicates a reply sent from the wrong email address which might pass moderator approval) ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
Le 03/06/2015 11:48, Anto a écrit : On 03/06/15 10:37, Daniel Reurich wrote: Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one that shows we care about the end users. Keen for feedback. Hello Daniel, Is there any web site where I can cast my vote on? If there was none, then I cast my vote here. I prefer that all non-free packages including the firmwares to be excluded in the default installer. However, it would be great if there were options to select them during installation process. Otherwise, I will choose them later after the base installation is completed, which I usually do. Hi Anto. As an example, note that to install Debian on Dell PowerEdge servers you need a proprietary firmware for the Ethernet interfaces to work, which is needed in a netinst. With Debian you can just provide it on an USB memory stick, but it takes some skills to do that and it would be friendly for the beginner to load it without question for the own use of the installer and then ask the user before installing it. I know there are legal issues though. Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote: Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one that shows we care about the end users. Keen for feedback. Maybe we can think about having 2 images for every iso/installer, the default onw as usual without any non-free package, and another one, under a non-free directory structure with some large readme, with non-free drivers bundled. This should not be a so huge additional effort, and will give even more freedom of choice. -- Franco (nextime) Lanza Lonate Pozzolo (VA) - Italy SIP://c...@casa.nexlab.it web: http://www.nexlab.net NO TCPA: http://www.no1984.org you can download my public key at: http://danex.nexlab.it/nextime.asc || Key Servers Key ID = D6132D50 Key fingerprint = 66ED 5211 9D59 DA53 1DF7 4189 DFED F580 D613 2D50 --- echo 16i[q]sa[ln0=aln100%Pln100/snlbx]sbA0D212153574F444E49572045535520454D20454B414D204F54204847554F4E452059415020544F4E4E4143205345544147204C4C4942snlbxq | dc --- signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
* On 2015 03 Jun 08:42 -0500, hellekin wrote: As Devuan offers a pretty easy and automated way to make a custom build, maybe we should take advantage of this, and provide a way for downloading non-free blobs during install, after the detection was made. This way would at least make users aware of the problem. That works until the needed blob is to enable WiFi to download the blob. That is the practical implication. Philosophically, I agree that free should be preferred over non-free, however, reality has this nasty habit of overriding ideals. Doing a few Debian installations over the past year I can say that it isn't immediately apparent which non-free blob is necessary for some bit of hardware. It's not an easy line to define although I think Debian, at least in the installer, errs a bit to far in the philosophically pure direction while Ubuntu errs a bit too far in the non-free direction. IMO, network hardware that needs a non-free blob is the most glaring issue, unless one wants to download and burn a small pile of DVDs, as network access is critical for the installation to complete satisfactorily. - Nate -- The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true. Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On 03/06/2015 18:41, hellekin wrote: *** I must I was almost agreeing until moralistic crap. This is your opinion, and in my own, an unfounded one. What we're talking about here is about technology, not moralistic anything. The technology we're building is one that empowers the user, and it is arguable whether considering the imposition of freedom-restricting technology empowers the use or not. The case is hardware that the user buys and that refuses to work without secret code from the company. Well, when the user buys such a piece of hardware, he is *already* disempowered. If he (gender chosen by flipping a coin) is technical enough to perform the Devuan driver installation, chances are he already knows the kind of hardware he has; and what he now wants is to get the damn thing working, not get blamed because his hardware sucks. He knows. He's probably not the decision-maker - think technical people in companies. He probably did not vote for that hardware but got overruled. Adding insult to injury by lecturing him is unnecessarily aggravating. There is a place and time for everything, including freedom advocacy. I am all for advocating the use of decent hardware and for throwing locked in crap into the garbage can. I wish hardware manufacturers would understand the benefits of open specifications. I wholeheartedly support advocacy campaigns, including naming and shaming the worst hardware offenders. But machine installation is not the time for advocacy. The decision has already been made, and at that point, telling users that it sucks isn't going to help anyone, it's just going to make the distribution look bad. -- Laurent ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:41:26PM -0300, hellekin wrote: On 06/03/2015 11:37 AM, Laurent Bercot wrote: about licensing purity. and: But whatever you do, don't paternalize the users. There's nothing more infuriating than an infantilizing message in the way of what you want to do. and: Your users chose Devuan: they already have made a good choice. and: do not disrespect them by force-feeding them moralistic crap they don't care about and that will only antagonize them. *** I must I was almost agreeing until moralistic crap. This is your opinion, and in my own, an unfounded one. What we're talking about here is about technology, not moralistic anything. The technology we're building is one that empowers the user, and it is arguable whether considering the imposition of freedom-restricting technology empowers the use or not. The case is hardware that the user buys and that refuses to work without secret code from the company. Would you buy a car if the seller would tell you that you will need to use their own specific fuel and tires, and only drive highways? Of course not, because you buy a mean of transport, not an universal ticket for free transportation. If Devuan is to replace Debian in its role of a foundation for free software distribution, then it needs to be closer to Debian, not to Ubuntu. And since we have the opportunity to discuss the matter, I'm for a core distribution of free software, that enables anyone to build upon that core, including softening its edges and allow it to enable self-rendition to proprietary software. This core distribution should fly high the colors of software freedom, because nobody else will do. And a fundamental software freedom is you can use it for any purpose, including making yourself a slave of corporations. But that should be a choice, and one that the distribution does not encourage by default. Now, the base installer is such a vector of individuation, as Debian 8 demonstrated by using it to install systemd. Systemd is free software, but we don't like it to be installed by default. Now we would frown at it and happily include non-free software in our base installer? I really don't see the point. Again, that people buy hardware requiring non-free software to run is a problem, but that problem does not need to be ignored and dismissed, it needs to be confronted and fixed. It can be quite difficult to find out whether a piece of hardware you're considering buying requires nonfree drivers. -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On 06/03/2015 11:37 AM, Laurent Bercot wrote: about licensing purity. and: But whatever you do, don't paternalize the users. There's nothing more infuriating than an infantilizing message in the way of what you want to do. and: Your users chose Devuan: they already have made a good choice. and: do not disrespect them by force-feeding them moralistic crap they don't care about and that will only antagonize them. *** I must I was almost agreeing until moralistic crap. This is your opinion, and in my own, an unfounded one. What we're talking about here is about technology, not moralistic anything. The technology we're building is one that empowers the user, and it is arguable whether considering the imposition of freedom-restricting technology empowers the use or not. The case is hardware that the user buys and that refuses to work without secret code from the company. Would you buy a car if the seller would tell you that you will need to use their own specific fuel and tires, and only drive highways? Of course not, because you buy a mean of transport, not an universal ticket for free transportation. If Devuan is to replace Debian in its role of a foundation for free software distribution, then it needs to be closer to Debian, not to Ubuntu. And since we have the opportunity to discuss the matter, I'm for a core distribution of free software, that enables anyone to build upon that core, including softening its edges and allow it to enable self-rendition to proprietary software. This core distribution should fly high the colors of software freedom, because nobody else will do. And a fundamental software freedom is you can use it for any purpose, including making yourself a slave of corporations. But that should be a choice, and one that the distribution does not encourage by default. Now, the base installer is such a vector of individuation, as Debian 8 demonstrated by using it to install systemd. Systemd is free software, but we don't like it to be installed by default. Now we would frown at it and happily include non-free software in our base installer? I really don't see the point. Again, that people buy hardware requiring non-free software to run is a problem, but that problem does not need to be ignored and dismissed, it needs to be confronted and fixed. == hk -- _ _ We are free to share code and we code to share freedom (_X_)yne Foundation, Free Culture Foundry * https://www.dyne.org/donate/ ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On 06/03/2015 12:06 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote: IMO, network hardware that needs a non-free blob is the most glaring issue *** Yes, indeed, many computers come with broken hardware that won't work without installing proprietary software. I think this case is the single case that should be exemplary: the official Devuan network installer should not, IMO, support this case. It is not against users, but against manufacturers. We all know what the workaround is: build an installer with the required firmware. Well, I think that work should be supported by manufacturers, not by the community. == hk -- _ _ We are free to share code and we code to share freedom (_X_)yne Foundation, Free Culture Foundry * https://www.dyne.org/donate/ ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:25:42 -0300 hellekin helle...@dyne.org wrote: the official Devuan network installer should not, IMO, support this case. It is not against users, but against manufacturers. So you want to punish users, for the sins of manufacturers ? Cheers, Ron. -- I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. -- Clarence Darrow -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org -- ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
* On 2015 03 Jun 16:55 -0500, alexus / dotcommon wrote: On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:37:22 +1200 Daniel Reurich dan...@centurion.net.nz wrote: Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. So that people should fork Devuan to get a truly free system by default? Even if the questionable firmware blobs that come with the standard Linux kernel tarball are available on the installation media, there is no requirement that you or anyone else must use them. It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one that shows we care about the end users. Hum... This sounds very strange to me... I was thinking having care about end users should mean help to avoid non-free software (not to use it by default), particularly if it deals with non-free blobbed firmware which have heavy implications in terms of privacy, tracking and surveillance... Maybe I'm the one who is in the wrong, but I think the fretting over non-free is a bit excessive in this thread. No one is demanding that the *installer* install Adobe Acrobat or Adobe Flash (that happens long after the installer has completed its work and is rightfully a user choice). What is at issue, as I see it, are the various in-tree kernel hardware blobs that for one reason or another Debian chose to call non-free. Keep in mind that Debian also relegates certain GNU manuals into the non-free category. Are they non-free? I'm guessing RMS doesn't think so. If the non-free firmware blobs that Debian dubs non-free really could not be distributed with the kernel, then they wouldn't be there, so I don't think it's a legal issue. I happen to think that Debian went too far in removing various kernel bits from the installer. Also, not all of the non-free firmware is in such a state due to hard headed manufacturers. As I understand it, the US FCC has rules about the end user not being able to configure the hardware (particularly anything that transmits a radio signal) to exceed regulatory parameters. Years ago I was led to believe that was the reason the old Atheros MadWifi driver had the binary blob. The current ath5k/ath9k drivers are community developed. Fortunately, the US FCC hasn't sent the US Justice Department after the developers. - Nate -- The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true. Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote: Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. I would like to see essential installation-related firmware available on the installer media if it is properly redistributable. To elaborate: - Only firmware without which the installition *cannot* proceed are covered. Disk and RAID firmware can be downloaded from the installer, but making network firmware unavailable renders the installer useless to the user. Having to use VGA, VESA, or fbdev is not covered. - Non-free drivers are not covered. - I am *not* endorsing any changes to the defaults that the installer proper has, or to the settings of the installation. - Available on the media technically includes have a udeb in some folder, and if that folder can be discovered I think that's enough. - Only firmware subject to a license allowing *anyone* to redistribute it, including on commercial media, is permitted. - In my humble opinion, it would be nice if the user had to manually enable said frmware (and could do so after checking that a lack of firmware caused a lack of working networking). Now, some comments on other comments... * If you're sending messages from your Windows phone, we already know where you stand. No need to repeat it three times. * The question is whether to change what's available on the installer, not whether to install nonfree firmware on systems by default. ...and on Daniel's later proposal: * A useful tool would be one that recurses through 'lsmod' output, using modinfo -F firmware and a file-package lookup to determine what packages are relevant. Conceptually, this *could* determine whether you're dealing with networking hardware. Additionally, one could scan for 'modalias' entries that are unclaimed, and find the required module/firmware. * Ideally, any change in installer behavior would be limited to advising the user about missing firmware and loaded drivers that require non-free firmware. I'd want it to say something along the lines of this (sample based on my currently non-operational X100e): The following drivers that are loaded use non-free firmware: DRIVER PACKAGE r8192sefirmware-realtek ... Some loaded drivers request uninstalled firmware: radeon firmware-linux-nonfree Some drivers have not been loaded, and require unavailable firmware: ... If you wish to obtain full functionality from these devices, it may be necessary to enable non-free packages. In some cases, drivers will work without the firmware. You may prefer to not use the hardware in question due to the proprietary licensing or for other reasons. [Continue] The last sentence is an abbreviated version, but should give you the picture. The point is to give users the knowledge that this hardware would need such-and-such, without glossing over the fact that there are downsides to selecting it. This should be information presented before the user selects repos to enable. HTH, Isaac Dunham ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On 04/06/15 13:52, Jude Nelson wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Reurich dan...@centurion.net.nz mailto:dan...@centurion.net.nz wrote: Ok, That was interesting Here's my thinking on the how and the why. definition of terms: user = the person using the installer to install Devuan. module = linux kernel module. hardware = reference to the particular chipset(s) in scope, be they SoC or plug in cards or devices. firmware = non-free binary blob that is required to be loaded by the standard kernel module for the hardware in scope in order for the hardware to operate. essential: required for proper operation. How: I will build a (udeb) package called firmware-reqd that: 1) Will provide an early detection of a select list of common essential hardware that: a) requires a non-free firmware blob b) is essential to make the system use-able enough to complete the installation to a bootable state. 2) Upon detection of said hardware, I will provide a prompt informing the user about the specific piece(s) of hardware detected that require non-free firmware to and give them the option to load that firmware and continue the installation or abort it at that point. 3) Only firmware meeting the above criteria will be included in the iso, but not used or loaded unless the operator specifically chooses to do so. 4) The choice to use non-free firmware will naturally lead to the question about whether the related firmware deb packages should be installed during the install. I could provide an option here, defaulting to yes but allowing deselection for those who may want to leverage the non-free firmware only during install but not on the running system. Note: When non-free firmware udebs are installed by debconf my understanding is that each of them will present the user a license upon which is also required to be accepted before that udeb is installed. Why this approach: I agree in principle about using strictly free/libre open source software, and where I have the choice I personaly will select hardware that aligns with those principles. However, I would not want my choices to become the tool that would punish those less informed, or unable to make the sacrifices required to comply entirely with that principle. To do so would be ungracious and unrealistic, and boils down to elitism and puritanism. Nevertheless, to silently let the installation of non-free firmware be done without recognition and challenge is not right either. So I see the most gracious approach is to inform the users and grant them the opportunity to choose how they would like to proceed. It gives opportunity for those who for conscience sake would refuse non-free firmware to do so, whilst not enforcing that choice an all users. I think that this is a reasonable approach, and once the above proposed package is ready, it is my intention to have it included in the official installer images we ship. Anyone that strongly objects can re-build their own installers without the non-free firmware packages added. I like this approach as well as Nextime's. I generally favor approaches that help the users make informed decisions, but otherwise don't get in their way of them doing what they want with their computers. I can help out with steps 1 and 2, if you're interested. There's lots of overlap with my work on vdev. Thank you for all the hard work you've put into getting the Devuan installer ready! -Jude Your offer is appreciated and heartily accepted! I've created the gitlab project and added you to the members. Thanks, Daniel. -- Daniel Reurich Centurion Computer Technology (2005) Ltd. 021 797 722 ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 02:52 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 06:18:37PM -0500, John Morris wrote: Non-free software: NO, Firmware: YES. So ixnay on things like the Nvidia drivers but yes on blobs. The reasoning on where to draw the line is pretty clear cut. How exactly firmware is not software? Both are strings of bits encoding commands for a processor living in silicon you own. So if the manufacturer puts the same firmware in an eeprom it isn't a problem? Or the BIOS itself? Are you running a Free BIOS? Do YOU know what your ACPI BIOS is doing right now? How about the CPU, those have loadable bits now, all entirely undocumented and closed. And lets not even open the can of worms over what Intel is doing lately in the of 'manageability.' I'm typing this on a Thinkpad, those have an entirely separate sixteen bit SoC 'embedded controller' with it's own OS that I have zero knowledge of what it is truly doing behind my back. In a more perfect world I'd agree that all that stuff should be open too, but it ain't, it ain't going to be. RMS managed to find -one- oddball machine that meets his definition of Free, if the vendor of that machine tried to sell them on the open market outside China they would find few takers. Bunnie's Novena 'Open Laptop' has blobs and closed 3d video drivers as well. Good luck tilting at this windmill. Where we can and should draw the line is in the kernel's address space. Blobs loaded into the kernel make the entire system untrustworthy and unmaintainable in ways a firmware blob loaded at initialization into an entirely different microcontroller managing WiFi doesn't. Not to mention that for regulatory reasons most vendors just aren't going to discuss the point with us. The situation stinks but changing it is beyond our current capabilities. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
I agree that there should be a scan ran to inform the system user that binary firmware is needed at boot, but likewise, if the system needs it, it should be an offered option at installation time also, just not offered by default as enabled. The user must at least select the option to install firmware such as this for example: -- [ ] Install optional kernel binary firmware - Kernel firmware is used by some modern devices to supplement EEPROMs and other mask roms normally included either with the driver internally, or on the device itself. Package (optional) : linux-kernel-firmware-nonfree-insert git pull date-noarch-.deb Notes: Selecting this option will not install any traditional non-free software packages (I.E. Adobe Flashplayer) on your system. This package is meant to only supplement the Linux kernel and it's drivers. Nothing else. Due to the fact certain kernel drivers lack this firmware internally and on chip, this package may be needed to gain full functionality of hardware such as VGA, Audio, SCSI, Networking, and other devices. If you were presented with a warning at boot that firmware needed to be loaded for your device(s), select and install this package, otherwise it is safe to continue without it. -- Just a passing thought. As shown, the option is disabled by default, has documentational notes, and is counted as an optional kernel package, not actual software. Good idea? Bad idea? Needs work? The cat ate the mouse? The dish ran away with the spoon? -Jim Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 21:52:20 -0400 From: jud...@gmail.com To: dan...@centurion.net.nz CC: dng@lists.dyne.org Subject: Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Reurich dan...@centurion.net.nz wrote: Ok, That was interesting Here's my thinking on the how and the why. definition of terms: user = the person using the installer to install Devuan. module = linux kernel module. hardware = reference to the particular chipset(s) in scope, be they SoC or plug in cards or devices. firmware = non-free binary blob that is required to be loaded by the standard kernel module for the hardware in scope in order for the hardware to operate. essential: required for proper operation. How: I will build a (udeb) package called firmware-reqd that: 1) Will provide an early detection of a select list of common essential hardware that: a) requires a non-free firmware blob b) is essential to make the system use-able enough to complete the installation to a bootable state. 2) Upon detection of said hardware, I will provide a prompt informing the user about the specific piece(s) of hardware detected that require non-free firmware to and give them the option to load that firmware and continue the installation or abort it at that point. 3) Only firmware meeting the above criteria will be included in the iso, but not used or loaded unless the operator specifically chooses to do so. 4) The choice to use non-free firmware will naturally lead to the question about whether the related firmware deb packages should be installed during the install. I could provide an option here, defaulting to yes but allowing deselection for those who may want to leverage the non-free firmware only during install but not on the running system. Note: When non-free firmware udebs are installed by debconf my understanding is that each of them will present the user a license upon which is also required to be accepted before that udeb is installed. Why this approach: I agree in principle about using strictly free/libre open source software, and where I have the choice I personaly will select hardware that aligns with those principles. However, I would not want my choices to become the tool that would punish those less informed, or unable to make the sacrifices required to comply entirely with that principle. To do so would be ungracious and unrealistic, and boils down to elitism and puritanism. Nevertheless, to silently let the installation of non-free firmware be done without recognition and challenge is not right either. So I see the most gracious approach is to inform the users and grant them the opportunity to choose how they would like to proceed. It gives opportunity for those who for conscience sake would refuse non-free firmware to do so, whilst not enforcing that choice an all users. I think that this is a reasonable approach, and once the above proposed package is ready, it is my intention to have it included in the official installer images we ship. Anyone that strongly objects can re-build their own installers
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
Hi Jim, On 04/06/15 14:34, James Powell wrote: I agree that there should be a scan ran to inform the system user that binary firmware is needed at boot, but likewise, if the system needs it, it should be an offered option at installation time also, just not offered by default as enabled. The user must at least select the option to install firmware such as this for example: -- [ ] Install optional kernel binary firmware - Kernel firmware is used by some modern devices to supplement EEPROMs and other mask roms normally included either with the driver internally, or on the device itself. Package (optional) : linux-kernel-firmware-nonfree-insert git pull date-noarch-.deb Notes: Selecting this option will not install any traditional non-free software packages (I.E. Adobe Flashplayer) on your system. This package is meant to only supplement the Linux kernel and it's drivers. Nothing else. Due to the fact certain kernel drivers lack this firmware internally and on chip, this package may be needed to gain full functionality of hardware such as VGA, Audio, SCSI, Networking, and other devices. If you were presented with a warning at boot that firmware needed to be loaded for your device(s), select and install this package, otherwise it is safe to continue without it. -- I was more thinking about scan of the hardware, and providing a report of all of the hardware requiring non-free firmware to be loaded. Potentially we would only need to pull in the specific firmware files required to make that work. Anyway the firmware-linux-nonfree package is a meta package that refers to all the non-free firmware packages and that includes a big bunch of stuff we won't want, like audio and video-card firmware. (We could allow for it to be selected later in task-select though). Our soul purpose is to only deal with firmware required for the installation process to complete - ie network cards for network installs etc.) Just a passing thought. As shown, the option is disabled by default, has documentational notes, and is counted as an optional kernel package, not actual software. Providing good information will server to educate the user is essential to helping them understanding why the question is put and what the implications are either way. Good idea? Bad idea? Needs work? The cat ate the mouse? The dish ran away with the spoon? -Jim Definitely dish ran away with the spoon :D PS, best way to feed into this project is to raise an issue in our gitlab: https://git.devuan.org/d-i/firmware-reqd -- Daniel Reurich Centurion Computer Technology (2005) Ltd. 021 797 722 ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On June 3, 2015 at 5:37 PM Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote: This is exactly my preference too. Let me easily choose at install time. Also, have the nonfree stuff in its own repository so if I include the nonfree stuff I can just add it to my sources.list. Although I rank among the purists, I could go along with this idea: Two ISO/repo configurations. One which is free. The other which works if the first doesn't. Although I am a purist, I am already compromised by needing to work in CAD/CAM environments which are only available in Windows, so I recognize a problem in general. But I don't want to make it easy for people who could install fine with the free installation to select the other one just in case. There is possibly an opportunity to gather information about what cases don't work with the free download. Peter Olson ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
Ok, That was interesting Here's my thinking on the how and the why. definition of terms: user = the person using the installer to install Devuan. module = linux kernel module. hardware = reference to the particular chipset(s) in scope, be they SoC or plug in cards or devices. firmware = non-free binary blob that is required to be loaded by the standard kernel module for the hardware in scope in order for the hardware to operate. essential: required for proper operation. How: I will build a (udeb) package called firmware-reqd that: 1) Will provide an early detection of a select list of common essential hardware that: a) requires a non-free firmware blob b) is essential to make the system use-able enough to complete the installation to a bootable state. 2) Upon detection of said hardware, I will provide a prompt informing the user about the specific piece(s) of hardware detected that require non-free firmware to and give them the option to load that firmware and continue the installation or abort it at that point. 3) Only firmware meeting the above criteria will be included in the iso, but not used or loaded unless the operator specifically chooses to do so. 4) The choice to use non-free firmware will naturally lead to the question about whether the related firmware deb packages should be installed during the install. I could provide an option here, defaulting to yes but allowing deselection for those who may want to leverage the non-free firmware only during install but not on the running system. Note: When non-free firmware udebs are installed by debconf my understanding is that each of them will present the user a license upon which is also required to be accepted before that udeb is installed. Why this approach: I agree in principle about using strictly free/libre open source software, and where I have the choice I personaly will select hardware that aligns with those principles. However, I would not want my choices to become the tool that would punish those less informed, or unable to make the sacrifices required to comply entirely with that principle. To do so would be ungracious and unrealistic, and boils down to elitism and puritanism. Nevertheless, to silently let the installation of non-free firmware be done without recognition and challenge is not right either. So I see the most gracious approach is to inform the users and grant them the opportunity to choose how they would like to proceed. It gives opportunity for those who for conscience sake would refuse non-free firmware to do so, whilst not enforcing that choice an all users. I think that this is a reasonable approach, and once the above proposed package is ready, it is my intention to have it included in the official installer images we ship. Anyone that strongly objects can re-build their own installers without the non-free firmware packages added. If it is the resounding will of the community to absolutely not ship the default installer with this approach, then I will withdraw from Devuan and someone else can take over the maintenance of the packages I've been working on. Thanks, Daniel On 03/06/15 20:37, Daniel Reurich wrote: Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one that shows we care about the end users. Keen for feedback. -- Daniel Reurich Centurion Computer Technology (2005) Ltd. 021 797 722 ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
Applause! Daniel, that is a well reasoned approach that puts the users first, gives them information, and gives them the choice. I think that is why we are here, at least I am. - Nate -- The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true. Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Franco Lanza next...@nexlab.it wrote: On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:37:22PM +1200, Daniel Reurich wrote: Hi, I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in our installers by default. It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one that shows we care about the end users. Keen for feedback. Maybe we can think about having 2 images for every iso/installer, the default onw as usual without any non-free package, and another one, under a non-free directory structure with some large readme, with non-free drivers bundled. This should not be a so huge additional effort, and will give even more freedom of choice. +1 -- Franco (nextime) Lanza Lonate Pozzolo (VA) - Italy SIP://c...@casa.nexlab.it web: http://www.nexlab.net NO TCPA: http://www.no1984.org you can download my public key at: http://danex.nexlab.it/nextime.asc || Key Servers Key ID = D6132D50 Key fingerprint = 66ED 5211 9D59 DA53 1DF7 4189 DFED F580 D613 2D50 --- echo 16i[q]sa[ln0=aln100%Pln100/snlbx]sbA0D212153574F444E49572045535520454D20454B414D204F54204847554F4E452059415020544F4E4E4143205345544147204C4C4942snlbxq | dc --- ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Laurent Bercot ska-de...@skarnet.org wrote: when the user buys such a piece of hardware Just be careful, the assumption is the user is the installer is the buyer, and frankly most of the machines I've installed in the last 20 years, that has not been the case. The old heres a donor from the junk pile for The Experiment that gets linux and somehow worms its way into production, the old desktop at home that turns into a LAN router or print server (in the old days before home routers existed as hardware). Donor hardware in general, junk from ham radio festivals, hand me downs... I would wager that many linux installs end on hardware where the buyer doesn't even know linux exists. Especially in business environments where the buyer is some guy who got sports team tickets for the big sale and he couldn't care less about the suffering the installer is going thru, may never even meet the installer. And the user often couldn't care less about the suffering of the installer either. I have hand built dedicated linux boxes from hardware I selected and paid for that I use, which fits the user = installer = buyer, but off the top of my head thats only 6 boxes in 20+ years out of dozens if not hundreds of systems over that time? ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
I disagree. I learned many moons ago not to necessarily depend on the distro for HW drivers, and as such don't consider them responsible or sucky because they didn't. I've always thought of it as an added bonus when they do, which is why I ran Ubuntu on my desktop for years until the systemd nazis infiltrated. I'm back on Debian, and yes, had to go somewhere else to grab a few drivers, so big deal? Next stop; Devuan. Looking forward to it. It's generally not very difficult to determine chipset/manuf., find the necessary blob/source and install/configure it - if it exists, or is still maintained. I also learned how to research purchase options, which is always a good thing to do regardless. I see it as a non issue for the folks who will be using Devuan. I imagine only non-tech desktop users would have problems with it. The same sort that might like what systemd does for/to them. SWS On Jun 3, 2015 1:06 PM, Laurent Bercot ska-de...@skarnet.org wrote: On 03/06/2015 18:41, hellekin wrote: *** I must I was almost agreeing until moralistic crap. This is your opinion, and in my own, an unfounded one. What we're talking about here is about technology, not moralistic anything. The technology we're building is one that empowers the user, and it is arguable whether considering the imposition of freedom-restricting technology empowers the use or not. The case is hardware that the user buys and that refuses to work without secret code from the company. Well, when the user buys such a piece of hardware, he is *already* disempowered. If he (gender chosen by flipping a coin) is technical enough to perform the Devuan driver installation, chances are he already knows the kind of hardware he has; and what he now wants is to get the damn thing working, not get blamed because his hardware sucks. He knows. He's probably not the decision-maker - think technical people in companies. He probably did not vote for that hardware but got overruled. Adding insult to injury by lecturing him is unnecessarily aggravating. There is a place and time for everything, including freedom advocacy. I am all for advocating the use of decent hardware and for throwing locked in crap into the garbage can. I wish hardware manufacturers would understand the benefits of open specifications. I wholeheartedly support advocacy campaigns, including naming and shaming the worst hardware offenders. But machine installation is not the time for advocacy. The decision has already been made, and at that point, telling users that it sucks isn't going to help anyone, it's just going to make the distribution look bad. -- Laurent ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 06:15:34PM +0200, Franco Lanza wrote: [cut] Maybe we can think about having 2 images for every iso/installer, the default onw as usual without any non-free package, and another one, under a non-free directory structure with some large readme, with non-free drivers bundled. This should not be a so huge additional effort, and will give even more freedom of choice. +1 HND KatolaZ -- [ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ] [ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ] [ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ] ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 07:06:08PM +0200, Laurent Bercot wrote: [cut] But machine installation is not the time for advocacy. The decision has already been made, and at that point, telling users that it sucks isn't going to help anyone, it's just going to make the distribution look bad. So in you opinion Debian looks bad to the users, since it does not come with built-in firmware blobs in the default installer? If I had to choose between making a few users more happy (as Ubuntu tried to do) and adhering to a principled and motivated policy, I would go for the latter. Again, please don't forget that a lot of crap has been pushed forward because the average user could find it useful. The only problem I have here is that I can't find anywhere a definition of what an average user looks like... My2cents KatolaZ -- [ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ] [ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ] [ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ] ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:25:42PM -0300, hellekin wrote: [cut] *** Yes, indeed, many computers come with broken hardware that won't work without installing proprietary software. I think this case is the single case that should be exemplary: the official Devuan network installer should not, IMO, support this case. It is not against users, but against manufacturers. We all know what the workaround is: build an installer with the required firmware. Well, I think that work should be supported by manufacturers, not by the community. and +1 for hk as well HND KatolaZ -- [ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ] [ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ] [ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ] ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
