On 2021-01-23 11:14:52 +0100 (+0100), Emanuele Rocca wrote: > On 22/01 08:30, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > Taking away the choice for users who care about software freedom > > to opt out of non-free content in the installer and find > > alternative options would be a loss of freedom, in service of > > convenience for users who aren't as invested in trying to > > minimize their use of non-free software. > > Having the option to opt-out firmware during the installation > procedure seems reasonable to me, and I don't think anyone was > suggesting otherwise. A statement was made which could have been interpreted that way, that the non-free image "works for all users," and all I was attempting to point out is that for some definitions of "works" that's just not true. We're arguing different points, and I fear talking past one another. > The situation we are in today is very different though: we build a > Defective by Design image that fails to install Debian on lots of > computers because it does not include the firmware most WiFi cards > need to function. If we were to make a mistake and accidentally > include such firmware, people would be able to use what we publish > on www.debian.org under the large "Download" button to install > Debian on their Thinkpads, and we would consider that a problem. > That's insane. I'll join the less-vocal crowd in disagreeing that the fully free image is especially defective (any more so than other software), and I feel like painting it that way does harm to your argument. Yes things could be better, on all fronts, but calling the hard work of the community and installer team "defective" because it doesn't cater to the specific set of users or devices you think it should isn't a great way to encourage continued participation in those efforts. I don't call the non-free installer image "useless" even though in its current form I'd personally prefer not to use it. I suppose I'm one of those lucky/nonexistent souls who carefully researches devices before purchase, often joining in crowdfunding or otherwise waiting on lengthy preorders specifically so I can support organizations designing and manufacturing devices targeting free/libre open source operating systems, who actually work to get any new drivers integrated into the mainline Linux and *BSD kernels, who distribute the source code and build toolchains for their own firmwares, openly license their board layouts and parts manifests, and so on. I appreciate that Debian gives me choice when it comes to software freedom and hope it continues to do so; this is why it's been my Linux distribution of choice for well over two decades already. I do sometimes install non-free firmware blobs (and you can even find me in the Debian changelog for firmware-linux-nonfree), so it's not as if I have a problem with the idea of improving visibility for non-free suite or the unofficial installer which ships them. I personally wouldn't even mind if they were included with the official installer builds so long as they didn't get applied automatically while in expert mode, but today the choice we have is between an image which has no non-free software requiring you to supply it yourself if necessary to complete installation, or an image which automatically installs non-free firmware even if you don't strictly need it... or finding time to participate in the installer team fixing bugs and revamping how some of this works, as such endless discussion doesn't magically write software. -- Jeremy Stanley
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature