Le 09/12/2016 à 00:46, Mark Fletcher a écrit :
that: 1) some drivers, for esoteric reasons, don't work as modules and
have to be compiled into the kernel image,
AFAIK, none of built-in drivers need any out-of-kernel firmware. How
could such firmware be loaded before a root filesystem is mounte
On Fri, 09 Dec 2016, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> So, if your computer is generally working it's possible that the device
> driver that is complaining about missing firmware is actually a driver
> you don't need... and if that turns out to be the case, you have the
Not in this case, the BCM43xx netwo
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:34:49PM +0100, Yvan Masson wrote:
> So, from the result of:
> # dmesg | grep firmware
> -> you know that kernel module "b43" is missing some firmware
> (ucode15.fw)
>
> After enabling contrib and non-free repository, you can search for
> related packages:
> $ apt sea
pularity-contest syslog user.log
> apt daemon.log exim4 fsck lastlog popularity-
> contest.0 syslog.1 wtmp
> auth.log debug faillog hp lightdm popularity-
> contest.gpg syslog.2.gz Xorg.0.log
> btmp dmesg
Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Dec 2016, Steve Greig wrote:
> > When I installed debian I got a message saying my computer (emachines
> > laptop AMD Athlon X2 64bit) needed some non-free software. The names of
> the
>
> The output
On Wed, 07 Dec 2016, Steve Greig wrote:
> When I installed debian I got a message saying my computer (emachines
> laptop AMD Athlon X2 64bit) needed some non-free software. The names of the
The output of "lspci" and cat "/proc/cpuinfo" would tell us a lot more.
I do
Hi,
> I would appreciate any advice on this. Is it possible to run a test
> to see what that software was and install it now. Although I would
> prefer not have any non-free software I would have it if it was
> something quite important such as controlling the fan.
As said Santiago
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:11:29AM +, Steve Greig wrote:
> When I installed debian I got a message saying my computer (emachines
> laptop AMD Athlon X2 64bit) needed some non-free software. The names of the
> software were given although I did not record the names. I decided to g
Steve Greig writes:
> When I installed debian I got a message saying my computer (emachines
> laptop AMD Athlon X2 64bit) needed some non-free software. The names of the
> software were given although I did not record the names.
That's important information. Could you try running
When I installed debian I got a message saying my computer (emachines
laptop AMD Athlon X2 64bit) needed some non-free software. The names of the
software were given although I did not record the names. I decided to go
ahead without the non-free software as I would have needed it on a media
and I
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:17:34 +0100
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am 2007-03-09 17:46:54, schrieb Trosinenko Anatoly:
> > There is a driver MTD -> NFTL in the kernel-source-2.6.8
> > (2.6.8-16sarge1).
> > Is it free software??? (See description in "make menuconfig".) There is
On (13/03/07 17:17), Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Who use 2.6.8 today? --
> It is outdate since years and nobody care realy about it.
Well it's still the standard kernel in sarge.. and my servers are
running it.
Regards
Clive
--
www.clivemenzies.co.uk ...
...strategies for business
--
To UNS
Am 2007-03-09 17:46:54, schrieb Trosinenko Anatoly:
> There is a driver MTD -> NFTL in the kernel-source-2.6.8
> (2.6.8-16sarge1).
> Is it free software??? (See description in "make menuconfig".) There is also
> the module "nftl" in the kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686 (2.6.8-16sarge1).
Who use 2.
There is a driver MTD -> NFTL in the kernel-source-2.6.8 (2.6.8-16sarge1).
Is it free software??? (See description in "make menuconfig".) There is also
the module "nftl" in the kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686 (2.6.8-16sarge1).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "uns
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 22:44, Shawn Lamson wrote:
>
> --- "Mark L. Kahnt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 00:50, Rob Weir wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 10:00:54AM -0500, Tom Allison wrote:
> snip
> > My outlook largely is coincident with Rob on this one - my vrms
> > lis
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 04:27:04PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
> > provide specs to Bertrik Sikken ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) who's trying to
> > write the SANE backend for it.
THe last time I tried using the drivers for the hp PSC 750 scanner - it
was broken - anyone get scanning to work on the PSC 750 on l
--- "Mark L. Kahnt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 00:50, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 10:00:54AM -0500, Tom Allison wrote:
snip
> My outlook largely is coincident with Rob on this one - my vrms
> listing
> mentions primarily RFCs and W3C recommendations, typefac
On 16 Nov 2002, John Hasler wrote:
> Bruce writes:
> > If I was a company I would certainly be hesitant to do anything with
> > Debian because it seems to have a problem with people making money off
> > software.
>
> Baffle. One of the most common reasons for packages to be in non-free is
> that
hole issue (not that it
> really matters), but why would people migrate? How much non-Free
> software do you have installed? If you don't know, ask your friendly
> Virtual RMS. I have a couple of w3c and IETF standard docs, some
> non-Free fonts (which I don't even seem to
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 11:48:50PM -0500, Tim St. Croix wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 16:26:46 -0700 (MST), you wrote:
>
> >HP just kinda sprung to mind as a Debian friendly entity
>
> Oh how I wish that were true! I'd be able to get my HP 3400C scanner
> working. If HP were truly Debian (or ev
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 10:00:54AM -0500, Tom Allison wrote:
> He speaks the truth.
> Removing non-free would probably cause some serious migration of
> users.
I'm not really sure where I stand on this whole issue (not that it
really matters), but why would people migrate? How
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 01:25:22AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> If we had a problem with people making money off software, I rather
> doubt that Progeny, to name but one, would exist.
Much less headed by one of our own...
--
.''`. Baloo Ursidae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' :proud Debian ad
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 16:26:46 -0700 (MST), you wrote:
>HP just kinda sprung to mind as a Debian friendly entity
Oh how I wish that were true! I'd be able to get my HP 3400C scanner
working. If HP were truly Debian (or even just Linux) friendly they'd
provide specs to Bertrik Sikken ([EMAIL PROT
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 04:03:21PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> If I was a company I would certainly be hesitant to do anything with
> Debian because it seems to have a problem with people making money off
> software.
If we had a problem with people making money off software, I rather
doubt that Pro
Bruce writes:
> If I was a company I would certainly be hesitant to do anything with
> Debian because it seems to have a problem with people making money off
> software.
Baffle. One of the most common reasons for packages to be in non-free is
that their licenses forbid the making of money from th
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Nicolaus Kedegren wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:36:48AM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > I think a much better solution would be for Debian to find a
> > multi-national commercial partner to take over non-free before it
> > gets dumped... maybe HP.
>
> This is a typical _d
On 15 Nov 2002, John Hasler wrote:
> Bruce writes:
> > I'm worried that if Debian totally ignores the non-free software world,
> > it will ignore Debian.
>
> Do you understand what the non-free archive is?
Yes, since Debian 1.3,
when I read the Social Contract, sa
Brian White wrote:
Dropping non-free would not help Debian. Most users and few companies
are really concerned with the copyright on the packages they use as
long as they get the job done. If you remove those things from Debian,
then those users will soon go to a distribution that gives them what
ing the install whether you want to
use non-free and contrib software. However, I do think that there
should be better explaination that contrib software depends on
non-free software to better educate newbies about the situation.
--
.''`. Baloo Ursidae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for a discussion, they are wanting to
> change the Social Contract, and we are the society they have the
> contract with.
>
> I'm worried that if Debian totally ignores the non-free software
> world, it will ignore Debian.
Just to give my 2cents worth, this is exactly my worr
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:08:22AM -0800, Steve Juranich wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:21:50 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > cat /usr/share/doc/debian/social-contract.txt, please. This is just
> > FUD.
>
> Okay, allow me to take a step back from my original message.
>
> First of all, I love Debi
Brian Nelson wrote:
> Not to promote the spread of FUD, but interestingly it has come up
> recently on debian-legal that the MIT/X11 license could possibly be
> interpreted as non-free:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00164.html
No, the referenced thread mere
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 07:12:27PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> If you think BSD is non free, then the MIT license is non free,
>> uninstall X and get back to your console, while the rest of us use it.
>
> Can you bloody well read what I wrote, plea
Bruce writes:
> I'm worried that if Debian totally ignores the non-free software world,
> it will ignore Debian.
Do you understand what the non-free archive is?
> I think a much better solution would be for Debian to find a
> multi-national commercial partner to take over non-f
I was being bitterly ironic, honestly if you dont ;) every sentence these days, almost
as bad as Rik Van Riel behaves...
Regards, Dean.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:16:55 + Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 07:12:27PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wr
e the proper place for a discussion, they are wanting to
> change the Social Contract, and we are the society they have the
> contract with.
>
> I'm worried that if Debian totally ignores the non-free software
> world, it will ignore Debian.
>
> I think a much better
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 07:12:27PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you think BSD is non free, then the MIT license is non free,
> uninstall X and get back to your console, while the rest of us use it.
Can you bloody well read what I wrote, please? BSD, MIT, and XFree86 are
all free.
--
Coli
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:21:50 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> cat /usr/share/doc/debian/social-contract.txt, please. This is just
> FUD.
Okay, allow me to take a step back from my original message.
First of all, I love Debian GNU/Linux. I have absolutely no problem
with the way that the distributio
If you think BSD is non free, then the MIT license is non free, uninstall X and get
back to your console, while the rest of us use it.
Regards, Dean.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:21:50 + Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:50:33AM -0800, Steve
ety they have the
contract with.
I'm worried that if Debian totally ignores the non-free software
world, it will ignore Debian.
I think a much better solution would be for Debian to find a
multi-national commercial partner to take over non-free before it
gets dumped... maybe HP.
- Bruce
--
To
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:50:33AM -0800, Steve Juranich wrote:
> Believe it or not, that previous paragraph had a point. I think that
> there are a lot more things that Debian developers should/could be
> working on before we start going on some witch hunt because somebody had
> the audacity to u
Steve Juranich writes:
> I think that there are a lot more things that Debian developers
> should/could be working on before we start going on some witch hunt
> because somebody had the audacity to use a license other than GPL.
DFSG-compliant != GPL
Read the DFSG, a few dozen package licenses, an
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:50:33AM -0800, Steve Juranich wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:42:14 -0200, Klaus Imgrund wrote:
>
> > why do people that don't want non-free .deb's just remove it from
> > their sources line?
>
> Amen.
>
> Where is the original of this posting? All I can find on the
>
Steve Juranich wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:42:14 -0200, Klaus Imgrund wrote:
why do people that don't want non-free .deb's just remove it from
their sources line?
Amen.
Where is the original of this posting? All I can find on the
debian-user archives is the two responses.
There is a l
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:42:14 -0200, Klaus Imgrund wrote:
> why do people that don't want non-free .deb's just remove it from
> their sources line?
Amen.
Where is the original of this posting? All I can find on the
debian-user archives is the two responses.
The original proposer makes the point
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:22:40 -0500
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Pursuant to Appendix A of the Debian Constitution and the
> > > guidelines offered at http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, I
> > > hereby offer the following draft proposal as the beginning of a
> > > General Res
> > Pursuant to Appendix A of the Debian Constitution and the guidelines
> > offered at http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, I hereby offer
> > the following draft proposal as the beginning of a General Resolution
> > process to decide this issue.
>
> i do NOT second this proposal.
>
> if,
lows this type of distribution
(ie being put on a CD with a collection of software and sold for profit)
b) if not then assume that it is NOT allowed and make an effort to contact teh
author
ask him if he would allow it and if so to ask him to ammend his copywrite
statement to allow it (rather than rel
manoj wrote,
>I certainly would prefer the Debian project itself not pass
> these judgements on non-free packages unless we had legal advice.
speaking hypothetically, as my law licenses are inactive to avoid the $800 a
year in fees while i spend time as a graduate student, and am probably n
ns is sane.
As far as 'preclassifying' the 'non-free' software goes, that is an
unbelieveably complex task. The nature of the restrictions range from
"no commercial use" (?!) to "you may not use this software for anything
related to nuclear energy, or munitio
Hi,
>>"Peter" == Peter Prohaska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> The idea of keeping up a list of files from non-free which can
Peter> be burnt on CD without hesitating would be a very good
Peter> thing. It might be just a directory with symlinks to packages
Peter> in non-free. So there would no
Hi there,
I usually stay away from these types of discusion but I thought I had
better step in on this one and provide some possible solutions.
Most people seem to want to be able to get hold of the the non-free
software however not everyone has access to a connection which is fast
or reliable
On Tue, Mar 31, 1998 at 03:43:42PM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, King Lee wrote:
>
> > I want Linux to become a viable alternative to Microsoft, not
> > because I hate Microsoft, but because Linux is better in many
> > circumstances. I would like corporate information technology
Bob Hilliard wrote (really):
>
> You ("E.L. Meijer \(Eric\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Bob Hilliard wrote:
>
> Although my response to King Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> started this thread, the quotation you attribute to me was not written
> by me. I believe, bu
On Tue, Mar 31, 1998 at 04:04:15PM -0500, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
>
> > : I would like to see non-free debian packages on CDs...
> > : it would make my life and the lives of many people easier...
> > Of course it w
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, King Lee wrote:
> I want Linux to become a viable alternative to Microsoft, not
> because I hate Microsoft, but because Linux is better in many
> circumstances. I would like corporate information technology
> managers to use Linux for mail servers, print servers, and
> whateve
...
>
> Of course it would.
>
I would like to add a second reason for encouraging vendors
include non-free software:
I want Linux to become a viable alternative to Microsoft, not
because I hate Microsoft, but because Linux is better in many
circumstances. I would like corporate informa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
>
> [snip ... and btw, your lines are exceptionally long. ]
sorry...here at work im stuck in win95...netscape doesn't have much for
helping you keep lines under 80 chars
(but I try)
> : I would like to see non-free debian
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
[snip ... and btw, your lines are exceptionally long. ]
: I would like to see non-free debian packages on CDs...
: it would make my life and the lives of many people easier...
Of course it would.
: and I would like to see some effort to make it easi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am curious as to what the problem is with the current system of distribution
> whereby Debian is distributed 'pure' on CD. And those users who have no
> problem
> with non-free liscences are free to download non-free debian packages from the
> Debian FTP site and mi
I am curious as to what the problem is with the current system of distribution
whereby Debian is distributed 'pure' on CD. And those users who have no problem
with non-free liscences are free to download non-free debian packages from the
Debian FTP site and mirrors thereof?
Thanks,
Timothy.
You ("E.L. Meijer \(Eric\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Bob Hilliard wrote:
Although my response to King Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
started this thread, the quotation you attribute to me was not written
by me. I believe, but am not sure, that it was written by Mr. Le
I hope you like it . I haven't used it too much. It comes with
alot of things including a command line conversion filter that handles a
large number of formats. I found it easier to do many conversions with
imagemagick than with netpbm
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, King Lee wrote:
>
> Thanks for
>
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Bob Hilliard wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> OOPS - I did not mean to start a flame war. May I give
> a little more context to my original post?
>
> I will use the Debian packages when I can. If xv doesn't
> come with Debian, maybe I will use a substitue if it is
> as fu
that the Debian community consider
encouraging cdrom vendors to include non-free software.
>
> I do not think we shall ever stop supporting non-free
> packages, since they are indeed in wide use by our users. And I think
> that there are vendors who sell parts non-f
Hi,
>>"King" == King Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
King> I hope you continue to support packages like xv and netpbm. I
King> think there are too many good packages out there for the
King> freeware community to ignore. If you support them please make
King> them as easily accessible as possible.
Thanks for the tip. I will probably replace xv with imagemagik.
Netpbm contains a number of programs that can be called from
a script. If imagemagik is an X11 program, I may not be able
to pipe images.
King Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, G John Lapeyre wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 30 M
al
Bob> Contract "We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of
Bob> software packages in these directories and determine if they can
Bob> distribute that software on their CDs."
Have I ever said we remove non-free software? Have I ever
said we tell CD vendors
Who is sacrificing the user? Even though it is not part of
Debian, we maintain non-free software. We support it. The bug
tracking system is just as freely available for the non-free stuff as
it is for software that is part of Debian. We just refuse to promote
it as part of the Debian d
Hi,
Debian is not ognoring non-free software. We maintain it, we
support it, it even is available from our ftp site. We do draw the
line at promoting it on our official CD, though. Anyone interested
can derive a distribution off the Debian distribution, and fill it as
chock full of
Hi,
>>"King" == King Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
King> Some of stuff in non-free is, in my opinion, rather basic and
King> cdrom vendors should be encouraged to include it. Especially
King> since other vendors include it with their distribution.
Are you volunteering to take personal l
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, King Lee wrote:
>
> I will use the Debian packages when I can. If xv doesn't
> come with Debian, maybe I will use a substitue if it is
imagemagik
> as functional, or close. However there are packages
> like netpbm which, to my knowledge cannot be replaced.
legally.
As I said in another post (which I won't repeat) I think
there's too much good non-free software out there for
Debian, or Linux, to ignore. Linux needs all the applications
it can get, and the applications should be easy to install.
A newbies 2 cents worth
King Lee
[EMAIL PROTEC
he spirit
> > of the Social contract; we in fact prefer free software over similar
> > (even possibly superiro non-free software).
> >
> > Bob> One possibility is to include the
> > Bob> non-free directory in the "Official CD" image, and point the
> &g
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, King Lee wrote:
> May I suggest that you might make a non-free_1 and
> non-free_2 directory. The non-free_1 directory would
> contain software for which there is no possible legal
> liability for the cdrom vendor and cdrom vendors would
> be encouraged to include. The dire
Bob> issuing the "Official CD".
>
> I object quite strongly. This seems to go against the spirit
> of the Social contract; we in fact prefer free software over similar
> (even possibly superiro non-free software).
>
> Bob> One possibility is to include
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob> The "Official CD" is a Good Thing (TM), but this side effect is a
> Bob> Bad Thing (TM).
>
> What do you mean, bad thing? Are we not trying to promote free
> software?Why is it a bad thing that more and more CD vendors are
> restricting
> Bob> Prior to the "Official CD", some vendors, such as CheapBytes,
> Bob> included substantial parts of non-free on their CDs while others,
> Bob> including Infomagic, ignored non-free. Since we made the
> Bob> "Official CD" available with the bo release, all CD vendors seem
> Bob> to have taken
Hello
Thanks for the prompt reply!
May I suggest that you might make a non-free_1 and
non-free_2 directory. The non-free_1 directory would
contain software for which there is no possible legal
liability for the cdrom vendor and cdrom vendors would
be encouraged to include. The directory non-
I hate "Me too"'s but Mnoj you are 100% right. ebian is meant as a
champion of free-software. By leaving non-free off of the CD's, we are
saying that we oppose restricted software. The user can still get it if
they want it but the extra effort helps drive the point home. I
personally package a
. This seems to go against the spirit
of the Social contract; we in fact prefer free software over similar
(even possibly superiro non-free software).
Bob> One possibility is to include the
Bob> non-free directory in the "Official CD" image, and point the
Bob> vendors to a statem
Hi,
>>"Bob" == Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bob> Prior to the "Official CD", some vendors, such as CheapBytes,
Bob> included substantial parts of non-free on their CDs while others,
Bob> including Infomagic, ignored non-free. Since we made the
Bob> "Official CD" available with the bo
King Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have just installed debian from cdrom (infomagic),
> and some of my favorite packages, available
> on Red Hat, are missing from the Debian
> distribution. These packages (netpbm , xv) are in the non-free
> subdirectory of packages in www.debian.org, but i
> I have just installed debian from cdrom (infomagic),
> and some of my favorite packages, available
> on Red Hat, are missing from the Debian
> distribution. These packages (netpbm , xv) are in the non-free
> subdirectory of packages in www.debian.org, but in the distributions
> available on cd
Hello,
I have just installed debian from cdrom (infomagic),
and some of my favorite packages, available
on Red Hat, are missing from the Debian
distribution. These packages (netpbm , xv) are in the non-free
subdirectory of packages in www.debian.org, but in the distributions
available on cdrom
85 matches
Mail list logo
