Re: gr_lenny vs gr_socialcontract
Mike O'Connor wrote:
> If we make users have to decide between the "100% free installer" and
> the "installer with non-free", and it makes the user have to think about
> "what is this non-free stuff, and why should I care". I think it is an
> added side benefit. If a user at some point decides to "vote with their
> pocketbook", by choosing a piece of hardware based on its compatibility
> with debian, I think that could also be a benefit.
Having a "really free-software" install path would be really good, even if
not working on every hardware out there
Some hardware already need non-free stuff from the beginning on; why not
providing a -dfsg (or "normal") and a -contrib (or whatever) one for all
the non-free hardware out there ?
Where is the difference between:
* using a contaminated installer from main and not adding non-free firmware
* using a non-contaminated installer from main and adding non-free firmware
In any case, for a firmware-needing hardware, either non-free firmwares or
presumably non-free blobs have to be used.
In swiss-french, we say: "Il ne faut pas cacher la merde au chat"
(approximatively: "Don't hide the shit to the cat")
Providing a guaranteed (as much of Debian's knowledge) free Linux kernel and
installer in main would be really fulfilling Debian's promises. This does
not necessarily exclude providing a "contaminated" installer and/or kernel
in contrib (or elsewhere).
This, in my user's eyes, would be "not hiding the shit to the cat"…
> A line has to be drawn somewhere.
> The arguments about "we are losing users to [other distro] becuase of
> this" Hold very little weight. "Be a popular distro" is not a goal of
> debian, "Be a free distro" is. "Let's include non-free software because
> everyone else is" is a counter-argument to me. If we are the only ones
> left that cares so much, all the more reason to stick to our principles.
Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse −