* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
+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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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.
--
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 =
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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,
51 matches
Mail list logo
