Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly
On 21 Apr 2024 11:31 -0700, from reidbox@proinbox.com (Reid):
> I'm a 10+ year Debian user, and a longtime Free Software supporter.
> Two weeks ago I was shocked to discover 29 non-free components in
> the Debian desktop I'd been using for the last couple months. There
> hadn't been any opt-in or even a notice about Debian's major policy
> change during the installation process (I use the Debian installer
> via the Live images), so I was completely unaware.
>
> In my initial attempts to figure out what was going on, I also
> didn't find any prominent announcement of the major policy change on
> Debian.org's homepage. Moreover, the "Our Philosophy" and "Why
> Debian" homepage links still give the impression that Debian is
> Free-Software-Friendly. That's extremely misleading now
> (automatically installing 29 non-free components with neither
> permission nor warning is not Free Software friendly).
Did you look through the installation guide, reading which before
installing Debian is _highly recommended_?
Out of Bookworm's installation guide:
Section 2.2 "Devices Requiring Firmware" specifically discusses that
non-free firmware, which previously was in non-free, has been moved to
the non-free-firmware component instead.
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/ch02s02.en.html
(That also links to the full vote record.)
Section 6.4.2 "Firmware and the Installed System" also discusses this,
and specifically mentions that the non-free-firmware section may be
added to the installed system's apt configuration.
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/ch06s04.en.html#idm2657
Note that this is _essentially unchanged_ from Bullseye, which would
add the much broader non-free component under the same circumstances.
https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/ch06s04.en.html#idm2844
Similarly for an upgrade, it is also _highly recommended_ to read
through the release notes for the version you're upgrading to.
The release notes for Bookworm discusses the addition of the
non-free-firmware component in at least three places (2.2, 4.2.8 and 5.1.1):
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.en.html#archive-areas
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#non-free-firmware
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#non-free-split
The Bookworm release announcement also discusses the introduction of
the non-free-firmware component: https://www.debian.org/News/2023/20230610
_That_, in turn, is linked to from the Bookworm release page (see the
first paragraph, which still discusses the initial Debian 12.0 release
alongside that 12.5 is the current Bookworm release):
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/
I'm honestly not sure how much more prominently the information on the
non-free-firmware component reasonably _can_ be published.
As for live media, perhaps it could be spelled out more explicitly;
but the fact that live media is primarily for trying out Debian and
only secondary for installation should be a fairly strong hint that
the more advanced installation procedures, such as passing parameters
to the installer on the kernel command line, _might_ not work the same
as with dedicated installation media such as the netinst image linked
to from the web site front page. The live media download page that one
can click through to ("other downloads" -> "try Debian live before
installing") also mentions that it contains the Calamares Installer
"as alternative to" Debian-Installer, whereas the installation guide
speaks _specifically_ of debian-installer in the context of firmware
lookup during installation; another suggestion (which, yes, could
perhaps be made more explicit) that there might be differences. If you
have a concrete suggestion for how this could be made clearer, I
suspect that the Debian Installer and Debian Webmaster teams would
appreciate suggestions.
--
Michael Kjörling 🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”
Reply to: