Re: more evil firmwares found
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 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
OK. :-) I stand corrected. I guess it's just that they've all hit me.
>> > 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.
OK. I'm cool with your opinion. :-)
>> > 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.
OK. I'll go off and try to fix some of the drivers to use userland firmware
loading; I've already started working on the r128 DRM, radeon DRM, and tg3
drivers. I think I've already *done* the r128 fix, but I can't test it.
>> 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.)
Nah, I was just proposing that Debian should support installation only on
systems which work without binary-only firmware downloads or non-free
drivers. I think there are lots of them. You think there are few of them.
I guess we should stop arguing and try to get some actual numbers. :-)
> 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.
People have? Hmm.
>> > 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.
Yes, of course. I just don't see *any* actual evidence that it will be
changed, beyond some secondhand claims that some people in the FSF, who may
or may not be able to do anything, are doing something; plus I see lots of
evidence that it won't be, from loud pronouncements by RMS. :-( And it's
been this way for what, six months at least?
> 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.
OK, so put it off until after sarge.
> better we could talk about it on this list indefinitely.
Heh. Well, I do spout off -- I do it in person too. Sorry.
>> 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
Well, in order to lend weight to my argument, I started trying to patch some
of the drivers to use userland firmware loading. Drivers which I can't
test because I don't have the hardware. And I'm trying to figure out the
correct upstream maintainers to send patches to; it looks like for TG3,
it's just Andrew Morton and/or Jeff Garzik as the general "NETWORK DEVICE
DRIVERS" maintainers? I guess Jeff because his copyright notice is on the
There are none so blind as those who will not see.