Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:23:31AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:32:11AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > These are fine words, but how do you think they can translate into reality ?
> > We don't currently have the ressources to do it the way it should be done, and
> > evne if we did, the deficiencies of d-i will make the work we do useless.
>
> Sven, can you please finally STOP flaming against the debian-installer team,
> thank you.
Well, its a simple statement of facts, is it not ? I mean, did you find any
untruth in what i said above, or in the other mail ? It has a direct bearing
over the problem at hand, and a certain subset of the d-i folk exhibited
inacceptable behaviour against me over it, so it is only just that their
errors and inadequacies are remembered when we speak about these topics, since
it was me trying to speak about those topics wich pushed them in the first
place to start the witch hunt against me, and nothing i can do can in any way
change the current mess, even the DPL in his attempted second mediation came
to the conclusion that i should just fork d-i or something.
So, no, i will not stop this, and i will never forget what they did to me, nor
the circunstances in which they did it, i tried mutliple times, but it was
rejected out of hand, so ...
> > But then, you could help, and put your actions where your mouth is, by
> > helping in the elaboration of an exhaustive list of such problematic firmware
> > hexdumps, together with their licencing conditions, their copyright holder,
> > and a summary of what the module is good for.
>
> I agree, everyone who wants to see the firmware issue solved should
> either start doing something about it or be silent.
>
> here is an outdated wiki document, where to start with:
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing
Thanks for the hint.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: