[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)

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

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 Gulbrandsen Sent: ‎6/‎3/‎2015 1:50 AM To: dng@lists.dyne.org; Daniel Reurich

Re: [Dng] I want to mount a Packages page, buildd and Wanna-build system

Irrwahn wrote on 03.06.2015 07:51: > > Isaac Dunham wrote on 03.06.2015 03:40: >> However, I'm wondering about something that's tangentially related but >> perhaps not part of the same code: >> Does anyone know what it takes to make Aptitude support downloading >> changelogs from non-Debian packa

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 Dan

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

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-f

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 cho

[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 machine

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 "intell

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. >

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

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 i

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 sof

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

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

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

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

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

> On June 3, 2015 at 7:39 AM 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,

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

Firmware and software plugins are individual issues unto themselves. Firmware that is needed to properly support hardware is in a class by itself, and the issue at hand. As far as binary drivers. No. Even then, another separate issue. This is solely on the kernel loadable firmware only. Nothing

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Adam Borowski 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 f

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 t

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

On 03/06/2015 13:32, Jaret Cantu wrote: Freedom of choice, but let them know that their choice makes baby kitten angels cry. Give freedom of choice if it's what the distribution is about; or don't give the option if the distribution is about licensing purity. But whatever you do, don't pate

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 t

Re: [Dng] Secure boot?

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Hendrik Boom 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 b

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

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 us

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.

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 exe

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:25:42 -0300 hellekin 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

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

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

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 y

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Franco Lanza 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 p

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 nazi

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Laurent Bercot 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 d

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 drive

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 n

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. >

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 c

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 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 man

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:48:55 +0200 Anto wrote: > > > 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 > > o

Re: [Dng] Secure boot?

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 10:58:15 -0400 Gregory Boyce 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 elim

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:25:42 -0300 hellekin wrote: > 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

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:08:52 -0400 Hendrik Boom 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 happ

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:37:22 +1200 Daniel Reurich 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

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 inst

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 conv

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

[Dng] finding computers that can run free.

On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 05:53:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:08:52 -0400 > Hendrik Boom wrote: > > > 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

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 an

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 Can

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

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 encod

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

Firmware is part of the kernel in a sense because it is loaded by the kernel at boot. It only interacts with the kernel and the kernel modules to provide any missing functionality, like a header file does, except rather than C code, it's prebuilt binary language code. It is not technically soft

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 = no

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. > > H

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 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 sys

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

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Reurich 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 chip

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 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 Devu

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

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 use

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

> On June 3, 2015 at 5:37 PM Steve Litt 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

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 redistrib

Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers

James Powell [2015-06-04 02:57]: > Firmware is part of the kernel in a sense because it is loaded by the > kernel at boot. It only interacts with the kernel and the kernel modules > to provide any missing functionality, like a header file does, except > rather than C code, it's prebuilt binary lan