[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: more evil firmwares found

Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> For the 2.6 kernel (only), here's a simple-minded system.
> Add to the driver floppies a 'non-free firmware' floppy.  The non-free
> firmware floppy contains files which are copied

So you're going to work on implementing this?

> (I am assuming that the installer can boot, set up its ramdisk, communicate
> with the console, and read from a floppy before any of these drivers are
> necessary.  If it can't, you have much bigger problems.)

Many of d-i's target systems do not have floppy drives.

> In Joey's statement, he appeared to be using "unusable" to mean "Not usable
> *at all*"; he didn't qualify it by saying "unusable for some people".

(Your out of context quibbling over my exact meaning of a word verges on
the kind of uselessness that makes me ignore people and/or threads, FWIW.)

  "if the resulting installer is unusable because it supports less
   hardware then does woody's"

I don't consider an installer usable unless I can use it on whatever
hardware comes along. If I have to reach for Red Hat or Knoppix half
the time to get a system installed, I will just swap the Debian CD out
of my working set. Then the Debian installer will have failed.

> I actually agree that as long as sarge is releasing "soon" -- and is already
> going to be full of non-free stuff -- there's no point in dealing with this
> for sarge, and it should instead be dealt with for sarge+1; the transition
> pains should be spread out, not stuffed all right before release.  (Of
> course, it's obnoxious that nobody "noticed" these freeness problems until
> now....)

This is not the first time this issue has been raised on this list, and
it has been raised on linux-kernel before too. Various people decided to
make it a big deal *now*, and I find that rather annoying. Especially
since some of them have made a big deal about our slow release cycles in
the past.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: