On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 21:43 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:54:12AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 02:32 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 10:24:30AM -0700, Grant H. wrote: > > [...] > > > > Problem: In 9.7.6. "Non-free hardware drivers" states as follows: > > > > ============================== > > > > Although most of hardware drivers are available as free software and as > > > > a part of the Debian system, you may need to load some non-free external > > > > drivers to support some hardwares, such as Winmodem, on your system. > > > > > > > > Tip > > > > Check available firmware packages with "aptitude search ^firmware" while > > > > enabling the non-free repository. > > > > > > > > Tip > > > > The NDISwrapper can use Windows XP network drivers natively on Linux. > > > > Check "aptitude search ^ndis". > > > > ============================== > > > > > > As I see this problem, this is one of the issue for "separation". > > [...] > > > > There is another problem with the abovetext - it mixes up non-free > > drivers and firmware. I realise they're both software and we would like > > them both to be free software; that's not what I'm arguing. My point is > > that it may lead users to confuse drivers and firmware (which leads to > > misfiled bug reports, etc.). > > Are you suggesting for me to replace > s/hardware drivers/drivers and firmwares of peripheral devices/ > s/external drivers/external drivers and firmwares/ Something like that. Only, 'firmware' is a mass noun, which means it doesn't have a plural form - you just say 'firmware', not 'firmwares', no matter how much of it you are talking about. > My text may have been a bit sloppy but my intent was to use "hardware > driver" in the broader sense including firmware loading driver code and > its data (i.e., firmware). I understand in stricter sense, these words > are used as: > > * driver: code running on the target architecture. > binary windows XP driver following NDIS is non-free driver > binary GPU driver offered as kernel module is non-free driver > > * firmware: code or data loaded on the peripheral device > (These could be rendering code running on GPU, > or FPGA/PLD netlist data, ...) Right. > I understand that the current official Debian position is all these are > non-free if they do not come with the SOURCE. Right. > (I personally think > requiring the source for FPGA/PLD netlist data is a bit awkward but I am not > here to argue for this point.) > > > The specific references to NDISWrapper and Winmodem also seem rather > > outdated now. > > Outdated in what sense. I understand recent focus of NON-FREE driver is > GPU. My understanding of GPU driver is: > > * Intel GPU (including ones coming in the same chip as CPU): > FREE driver supported by the vender > * ATI(AMD) and NVIDIA GPU: > NON-FREE driver supported by the vender > FREE driver (Tends to be less featureful than NON-FREE driver) The free driver for AMD GPUs (radeon) also needs to load non-free firmware. > Or outdated because NDIS and Winmodem situation has changed? Both, really - firstly I think NDISwrapper and soft-modem drivers are not commonly needed, and secondly the non-free GPU drivers are more widely used (but less important, as there are free alternatives available). [...] > For modem, I never bought Winmodem nor I use POTS MODEM these days. > So this is carried over for last 5-8 years. It seems that many PCs still come with POTS modems (all my laptops have had them) and I imagine they would need a non-free soft-modem driver - if I ever needed to use them. But I suppose POTS modems are still widely used in some rural areas. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Make three consecutive correct guesses and you will be considered an expert.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part