Re: If Debian support OS certification?
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> No, they should not, otherwise this certification becomes meaningless.
I see these certifications primarily as a service to Debian users and
not as endorsements of vendors, but as statements of fact. The
consequences to users should stated as part of the certification
output. "This system can run Debian main", "This system is missing
drivers for XYZ", "This system requires non-free firmware", "This
system requires a custom bootloader", "This system requires a custom
kernel", "This system requires a custom kernel and must use sysvinit",
"This system requires an unofficial Debian port", "This system
requires recompiling Debian from scratch" (CPU requirements bumps or
CPU bugs). Basically, a more automated version of InstallingDebianOn.
If Debian only certifies systems installed using official d-i images
then we won't be certifying much, since almost everything requires
preinstalled or runtime-loaded non-free firmware for some part of the
system. We would basically only be able to certify RYF devices and may
as well just require FSF RYF certification up-front before a system
can be certified for Debian use.
Since we already need two tiers of certifications for main vs
non-free, is it really that much of a problem to add some more as long
as our users are informed of the issues they will face? Users are
going to buy or acquire those problematic systems anyway, especially
in areas where there are almost zero devices that Debian could be
certified for (for eg mobile devices). If they do and then decide to
run Debian, information about what the consequences are would be
useful.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: