Re: installer defaults for desktops (was Re: Suggested edit)
> On Mar 23, 2017, at 9:20 PM, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
>
> It's not really polite to call this "expert" (only in the sense
> described by the Advanced options in the installer) rabid, and what
> I do with the installer ridiculous.
>
> I don't wish to accept arbitrary impositions on what I can do with
> free software. That's the rationale behind its existence: freedom.
> Nor do I wish to be told what I ought to be spending my money on,
> just to conform with your, ahem, suggestions.
The point of free software is not to cater to your personal preferences, or mine, but to make that software accessible and useful to the greatest number of people. The netinst installer doesn't do that when it allows a very broken installation to result. There will inevitably be "arbitrary" decisions involved in a project like this, like not including the non-free firmware in the installer, and the switch to systemd.
If you don't have a spare network card to use temporarily for a netinst and don't want to spend $15 on a USB NIC then download and use a different installer, like the first dvd of the complete set. It's free!
You still have not mentioned any actual use case for this hypothetical base system box with no network capability. What is the practical daily function of this box? You just keep insisting that you have such a use, and that using a different installer to get it is unacceptable as an option. Why is it so unacceptable? Because changing the netinst installer it might make it easier for new users to Debian?
Cathy
Reply to: