Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]
On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 11:29:57 +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Du, 28 feb 21, 12:03:31, Celejar wrote:
> >
> > Snark aside, what's wrong with something like this:
> >
> > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software
> > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon
> > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free
> > installation images available here."
>
> For those who didn't visit the Debian website recently, following the
> discussion on debian-devel this is now two clicks away from the home
> page (-> More... -> Download: More variants of Debian images):
>
> https://www.debian.org/distrib/
>
> If any of the hardware in your system requires non-free firmware to
> be loaded with the device driver, you can use one of the tarballs of
> common firmware packages or download an unofficial image including
> these non-free firmwares.
>
> Instructions how to use the tarballs and general information about
> loading firmware during an installation can be found in the
> Installation Guide.
>
> unofficial installation images for "stable" with firmware included
The page https://www.debian.org/distrib/ is entitled "Getting Debian".
And what is Debian? asks a user. The answer is at
https://www.debian.org/intro/philosophy
> The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made
> common cause to create a **free** operating system.
(Emphasis is mine).
Then, at the bottom of https://www.debian.org/distrib/, we see an advert
to download an unofficial image of the installer. "unofficial" is mealy-
mouthed. What is meant is "non-free". What it says is "Hey, we have a
better installation image for you but we had to sneak it in here because
of the Debian thing" :).
The Installer is the Jewel in the Crown of Debian. Tainting it and having
it competing is a new development. I am all for being pragmatic, but
usurping the Installer's status appears a step too far.
--
Brian.
Reply to: