On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:38:06 -0600, Michael Lustfield
wrote:
>As long as I avoid Nvidia, I usually have excellent luck finding systems
>(specifically laptops) that work well without anything from non-free.
Which current and available Wifi adapter works without non-free
firmware?
Greetings
Marc
--
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:45:33 +0800, Yao Wei wrote:
>My 2 cent is, we can distribute ISOs without non-free things, but we
>need an add-on pack to put into the USB flash drive for non-free network
>drivers, and we categorize the add-on not part of Debian. We also have
>to improve the website to poin
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> It might be less disruptive to add a new field like Subsection; that'd avoid
> the need to change any of archive tools -- including ones not used on the
> official archive, like reprepro.
...
> Because Section: implies an unique section, whil
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:05:51AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> > * splitting non-free in subsets;
> > * adding a non-free-firmware area;
>
> I think we don't want either of these, instead we should *add*
> additional Packages files for
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 04:29:43PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
> the non-free ISO with firmware and other things needed to get typical
> modern hardware running, and improve the discoverability of the
> latter. I think we can
Adam Borowski writes:
> No distruption for existing systems, satisfies those concerned about
> accidentally installing "real" software (as much as the notion of
> executable code running on another processor in your machine, or even
> deeper inside the same processor, being less of software, is r
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:05:51AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> > * splitting non-free in subsets;
> > * adding a non-free-firmware area;
>
> I think we don't want either of these, instead we should *add*
> additional Packages files for
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> * splitting non-free in subsets;
> * adding a non-free-firmware area;
I think we don't want either of these, instead we should *add*
additional Packages files for each of the classes of non-free things
that people want to be able to is
Le lundi, 4 décembre 2017, 23.18:21 h CET Philipp Kern a écrit :
> On 04.12.2017 19:03, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:36:30PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Lars Wirzenius writes:
> >>> Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
> >>> the non-free IS
Am 05.12.2017 um 06:02 schrieb Paul Wise:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On 04.12.2017 19:03, Holger Levsen wrote:
>>> yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
>>> however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo,
>>> non-free
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 04.12.2017 19:03, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
>> however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo,
>> non-free-firmware (additionally to main, contrib and non
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:45:33AM +0800, Yao Wei wrote:
> About alternatives, I found it difficult to buy a brand-new laptop with
> 802.11ac wifi chip which is available on the market. All of them
> requires firmware or even non-free Linux modules.
All wifi chips use firmware so this is a bad a
On Dec 04, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> As long as I avoid Nvidia, I usually have excellent luck finding systems
> (specifically laptops) that work well without anything from non-free. With
> servers, I usually need something for the networking drivers but nothing else.
Looks like you are confused.
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 06:49:05PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:41:34PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > There are alternatives?
>
> always.
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> Holger
About alternatives, I found it difficult to buy a brand-new laptop with
802.11ac wifi c
On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 21:01 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I end up needing non-free firmware on most bare metal systems, but
> nothing else from non-free. I never remember how to include it at
> installation time. And I don't want us to gloss over the fact that
> it is non-free and therefore not
On 05.12.2017 00:11, Adam Borowski wrote:
> How exactly firmware is not software?
> We may take a concession and offer non-free or parts of non-free more
> prominently (as it's needed on modern x86, all wifi cards I've seen, etc),
> but let's not declare that non-software.
>
> Thus, until the situa
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:46:37PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 04, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > +1. I think firmware is something conceptually different than non-free
> > software in general, and it would be good to give users a simple way to
> > choose to enable non-free firmware without e
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:41:34 +0500
Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:34:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > For the discoverability, I would be quite comfortable with putting both
> > the free and the non-free download links prominantly on the page with the
> > non-free link g
On Dec 04, Russ Allbery wrote:
> +1. I think firmware is something conceptually different than non-free
> software in general, and it would be good to give users a simple way to
> choose to enable non-free firmware without enabling other non-free
> software.
Me too.
Mostly everybody believed thi
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:18:21PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I guess the question from my side is if the list of archive components
> in §5 of the Social Contract is supposed to be exhaustive or not. I.e.
> if we need to change that or not. If we don't need to: yay. (Maybe
> because we editorial
On 04.12.2017 19:03, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:36:30PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
>>> Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
>>&g
On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 10:34 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Holger Levsen writes:
>
> > yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
> > however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo,
> > non-free-firmware (additionally to main, contrib and non-free) wou
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 08:21:21PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:34:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >Holger Levsen writes:
> >
> >>yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
> >>however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth
Am 04.12.2017 um 19:03 schrieb Holger Levsen:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:36:30PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
>>> Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
>&g
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:34:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Holger Levsen writes:
yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo,
non-free-firmware (additionally to main, contrib and non-free) would be
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 06:49:05PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > There are alternatives?
>
> always.
Non-x86, I assume.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:41:34PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> There are alternatives?
always.
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:34:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> For the discoverability, I would be quite comfortable with putting both
>> the free and the non-free download links prominantly on the page with
>> the non-free link going to or closely tied with a page
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:34:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> For the discoverability, I would be quite comfortable with putting both
> the free and the non-free download links prominantly on the page with the
> non-free link going to or closely tied with a page that discusses the
> issues, expla
Holger Levsen writes:
> yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
> however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo,
> non-free-firmware (additionally to main, contrib and non-free) would be
> even better and also not need a GR.
+1. I think firmwar
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:36:30PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
> > Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
> > the non-free ISO with firmware and other thi
Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
> Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
> the non-free ISO with firmware and other things needed to get typical
> modern hardware running, and improve the discoverabil
On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:31:14 +0100,
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 08:28:49AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > I doubt there was any such decision, except by not knowing there was a
> > decision that could be made. The official, fully Free ISO (which is OK
> > for VMs and some
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:33:07PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Just because software comes pre-installed doesn't mean it is free. And
> if it is also impossible to replace the software you also can't update
> it with a free version so the user has even less freedom than when you
> can replace th
On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:21:49 +0100,
Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Jonathan Dowland writes:
>
> > Are *you* using non-free firmware?
>
> The machines sold by, for example, ThinkPenguin, work with the latest
> Debian release, without non-free software. There's one example, which
> responds to the rhetori
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Are we promoting hardware that *doesn't* require non-free firmware (not
> drivers, there is an important distinction) at the moment?
On our website, we don't promote hardware, just people/companies that
you can pay to install Debian for yo
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> IMHO, we need to go (more) one way or the other. We either reaffirm that
> firmware is in-scope for our DFSG values and stop compromising it with
> the non-free install images, or we look to revise the DFSG in line with
> modern realities a
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:21:49PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> and the Debian Project promotes hardware that doesn't
> require non-free firmware (because the Debian system by default needs no
> extra drivers for that hardware).
... equally with the hardware that uses pre-flashed firmware.
> > I don
Jonathan Dowland writes:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 09:17:59PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >I at least, and probably a lot of Debian contributors, would start
> >hating Debian for promoting hardware that needs non-free drivers if
> >the non-free ISO was the default one.
>
> Are we promoting har
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 04:46:24PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Yes. We're approaching a worst-of-both-worlds scenario: We're not Free
> enough to have the FSF recommend us, and we're not non-free enough for
> our OS to run on current hardware used by Linux beginners, and cause
> them to end up with
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:39:18AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > I at least, and probably a lot of Debian contributors, would start
> > hating Debian for promoting hardware that needs non-free drivers if the
> > non-free ISO was the default one.
>
> Are we promoting hardware that *doesn't* re
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 09:17:59PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I at least, and probably a lot of Debian contributors, would start
hating Debian for promoting hardware that needs non-free drivers if the
non-free ISO was the default one.
Are we promoting hardware that *doesn't* require non-free
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 08:28:49AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
I doubt there was any such decision, except by not knowing there was a
decision that could be made. The official, fully Free ISO (which is OK
for VMs and some embedded systems, but normally a trap for the PCs we
expect new users to b
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Debian is also about providing an Universal Operating System, and I
>> have seen BIG installations of Debian on server farms moving to
>> PragBF because the Broadcom network chips on those servers required
>> people jumping t
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> Debian is also about providing an Universal Operating System, and I
> have seen BIG installations of Debian on server farms moving to PragBF
> because the Broadcom network chips on those servers required people
> jumping through hoops while PragB
On 12/03/2017 11:20 PM, Alf Gaida wrote:
> It is not only the last bit. And i don't think that 'a little bit more'
> promotion is sufficient. We should clearly state why we prefer the free
> ones. But we should not hide the non-free ones and should have them on
> the same site. With a clear stateme
On 03.12.2017 21:17, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> The FSF wouldn't be the only one. I at least, and probably a lot of
> Debian contributors, would start hating Debian for promoting hardware
> that needs non-free drivers if the non-free ISO was the default one. If
> this drives some of our users away, ne
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 21:17:59 +0100, Thomas Goirand
wrote:
>The FSF wouldn't be the only one. I at least, and probably a lot of
>Debian contributors, would start hating Debian for promoting hardware
>that needs non-free drivers if the non-free ISO was the default one. If
>this drives some of our use
On 12/01/2017 05:31 PM, Alf Gaida wrote:
> On 01.12.2017 16:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
>>> I find it interesting that we're having this conversation at the same
>>> ti
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 21:38:46 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin
wrote:
>ALso AFAIK when packages are temporarily removed from testing for various
>reasons that may break the user systems (or, at least, make their
>experience worse when they want to install something). At least I've seen
>a position of "test
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:15:41 +, Jonathan Dowland
wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:34:40PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>>It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
>>firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
>>the ISO without non-free firmware?
>
>I
On Fri, 2017-12-01 at 12:16 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:31:09PM +0100, Alf Gaida wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Ian, thats dead easy - put the needed packages onto the iso and be done
> > with. The installer should have an option to opt-in contrib and/or
> > non-free. Done
Hello everybody,
I started on the free software world 7 years ago. My first distro was
Debian. But in that time Debian was "complicate" for me. So, I change to
Ubuntu. I used to use them like a simple user.
A couple of month ago I decided to contribute to Free software, so I choose
Debian.
Now,
The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-12-01 at 16:44, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Luca Capello wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:
People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g
was installed, the user only had RO access. That's the bigger
issue
On 2017-12-01 at 16:44, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Luca Capello wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:
>
>>> People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g
>>> was installed, the user only had RO access. That's the bigger
>>> issue.
>
>> Exactly, which
Luca Capello wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:
>> People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g was
>> installed, the user only had RO access. That's the bigger issue.
> Exactly, which IIRC is the normal behavior if the NTFS filesystem was
> not
Hi there,
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:59:53 -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> People seem to be skipping over the fact that even after ntfs-3g was
> installed, the user only had RO access. That's the bigger issue.
Exactly, which IIRC is the normal behavior if the NTFS filesystem was
not properly "closed",
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:23:14PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 01.12.2017 um 07:34 schrieb Paul Wise:
> > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> >> * no support for RW on NTFS drives, only RO. This wasn't fixed even by
> >> installing ntfs-3g [0].
> >> I didn't have t
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:02:45PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Look over the fence. How long did it
> take for Windows XP to disappear? Before that, how long was Windows 98
> king? How many users still cling to Windows 7? They don't need the
> newest, shiniest software. They want something stable t
Arturo Borrero Gonzalez dijo [Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:15:04PM +0100]:
> >> It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> >> firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
> >> the ISO without non-free firmware?
>
> What others say is true. It's not easy t
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:31:09PM +0100, Alf Gaida wrote:
> >
> Ian, thats dead easy - put the needed packages onto the iso and be done
> with. The installer should have an option to opt-in contrib and/or
> non-free. Done. Ok, that was the technical part.
Which has the potential to make the insta
Alf Gaida writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
> On 01.12.2017 16:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > FAOD I agree that the current situation with install images for random
> > PCs is quite unsatisfactory, but I don't know how to square the circle.
On 01.12.2017 16:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
>> I find it interesting that we're having this conversation at the same
>> time as a thread about how there should be a configuration optio
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 03:34:04PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On December 1, 2017 7:15:04 AM EST, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez
> wrote:
> ...
> >Other thing is the branding topic. I would like to promote usage of
> >Debian testing for standard desktop/laptop users in personal
> >environment
On 01.12.2017 16:34, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Testing doesn't have security support (and since neither the security team
> nor maintainers can upload to it, it's the most problematic choice from a
> security support perspective). I don't think that's suitable to recommend to
> end users of any
Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
> I find it interesting that we're having this conversation at the same
> time as a thread about how there should be a configuration option that
> denies our users the opportunity to choose to i
On December 1, 2017 7:15:04 AM EST, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez
wrote:
...
>Other thing is the branding topic. I would like to promote usage of
>Debian testing for standard desktop/laptop users in personal
>environments (not for business machines)
>but the 'testing' word scares people. I don't have
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:22:03PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 01.12.2017 um 13:15 schrieb Arturo Borrero Gonzalez:
> > On 1 December 2017 at 12:23, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >> Am 01.12.2017 um 07:34 schrieb Paul Wise:
> >>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
>
> >>
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 at 13:15:04 +0100, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> But this is something that we have already detected: our main website
> needs work.
> We just need someone doing the work.
I don't think that's the only (or even the main) issue here. This new user
was able to find an ISO from
Am 01.12.2017 um 13:15 schrieb Arturo Borrero Gonzalez:
> On 1 December 2017 at 12:23, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Am 01.12.2017 um 07:34 schrieb Paul Wise:
>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
* no support for RW on NTFS drives, only RO. This wasn't fixed even by
>
On 1 December 2017 at 12:23, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 01.12.2017 um 07:34 schrieb Paul Wise:
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>> * no support for the wifi interface of the dekstop machine (this was
>>> expected, fixed by installing non-free package by hand, si
Am 01.12.2017 um 07:34 schrieb Paul Wise:
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> * no support for the wifi interface of the dekstop machine (this was
>> expected, fixed by installing non-free package by hand, since no
>> network)
>
> It would have been best for him
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:34:40PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
the ISO without non-free firmware?
I can't even find it from following links on debian.org, although I
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 at 14:34:40 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> > * no support for the wifi interface of the dekstop machine (this was
> > expected, fixed by installing non-free package by hand, since no
> > network)
>
> It would have been
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> * no support for the wifi interface of the dekstop machine (this was
> expected, fixed by installing non-free package by hand, since no
> network)
It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
firmware embedded,
75 matches
Mail list logo
