There's a difference between "recommending non-free software" and "providing
the possibility to install it", and perhaps this could solve the whole
problem.
Imagine a user who doesn't know much about the problems with proprietary
software.
He installs Debian, but on his pc is a wireless card which needs non-free
firmware.
If the installer clearly points out the problems with non-free software and
possible solutions (floss friendly wireless card from tp etc.) but provides
the possibility to install it anyway, the new user makes a positive
experience with his new "almost free" system. Don't push him away when he
doesn't quite understand the reasons.
Very likely he will think about the problems the installer told him about and
really replace his wireless card some months ago.
Result: a person uses his pc in freedom, a new member for the free software
community.
The other possibility is not to provide the firmware because it's unethical.
Result: new users won't understand, become frustrated and go back to windows.
The OS developers stayed pure and holy, they remain "ethical".
The only way of getting the ideas of free software in people's minds is the
first one.
And we *need* more support, like chris pointed out, if we want to build a
pure computer one day for an acceptable price.
The only thing I can blame debian for is the lack of information they give to
the users;
they really should teach them when proprietary software might be installed
everytime and teach them about the problems; they should not recommend it,
but the possibility to do so should remain.
