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

Re: more evil firmwares found

On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 01:58:34PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Are you being deliberately inflammatory? Is this a troll?
> Maybe just a little.  Really, though, the widespread use of the sarge-ignore
> tag for long periods speaks for itself.

According to

there are 14 bugs tagged sarge-ignore. I don't consider that an

> > I don't think anyone has proposed ignore the issue indefinitely.
> Yessss, they have.  Marco D'Itri proposed that, on the grounds that
> peripheral software somehow "didn't count".  For the GFDL issue, many

I stand corrected: Marco does seem to be proposing we ignore this issue
forever. I disagree.

> > It has been proposed that we ignore it for now on the grounds that it's
> > both hard to fix
> Which claim I disagree with.  :-P  

But for which you've offered no proof.

>                                    It's hard to fix *while* supporting
> various random pieces of hardware, which is something slightly different.

Are you proposing we only support exactly the hardware in your desktop
PC? (After all you've told us a few times that your system works without
any binary-only firmware or non-free drivers.)

I have a couple of K6 systems with old video cards that work without any
binary-only drivers or firmware, but most people have moved on.

> > and less significant than the GFDL issue, which we're
> > also ignoring for sarge.
> What I was commenting on was, in fact, the GFDL issue, which has been
> ignored for an *ample* period of time.

Because it's hoped that the license can be changed rather than having to
remove those packages. So rather than move it twice, it's staying in
main for now. I hope you can see the sense in this.

If we weren't worried about the release deadline for sarge we could
certainly rip all the non-free stuff from the kernel starting now. Even
better we could talk about it on this list indefinitely.

> Anyway, you don't need to be a developer to read the Social Contract and
> expect that it means what it says.  :-P

No, but it would add weight to your argument. So far you appear to be
just a heckling user :-P

Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Reply to: