Quoting Steve McIntyre (2022-08-26 00:21:20) > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 09:40:24AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > > >The problem is that the vendors for most devices that include the Intel > >hardware require Intel signatures on the firmware binaries. > > > >Some devices (Intel based Chromebooks and UP boards) allow firmware > >binaries to be signed by a "community" private key that is public. > > > >In the future Intel may enable a scenario similar to Secure Boot's > >Machine Owner Key setup, where device owners can add new signing keys. > > > >https://github.com/thesofproject/sof/issues/5814 > > > >In that situation, Debian could sign the audio firmware binaries > >instead and allow users to sign their own modified firmware binaries. > > Yup, that would be a lovely big win! > > >> The free installer is ideal for virtualisation only because it's > >> sitting on top of a bunch of idealised hardware. > > > >It could also be useful for devices that run libre firmware, such as > >Raptor Computing's ppc64el devices, although Debian does not have > >packages of the libre firmware projects for these devices so in > >practice it isn't yet useful for those scenarios. > > Right. > > I'd prefer us not to get dragged down the "users just need to pick the > right hardware" path. That way potentially lies a (slightly snobbish?) > "you chose wrong, try harder" message that will just push users (and > eventually developers) to other distros. > > There are always going to be machines that we can't/won't be able to > support, but when the vast majority of current laptops don't function > sensibly without non-free firmware I think we have to adapt to reality > in supporting our users. I agree with the above. (I don't recognize anyone dragging us down said path in this thread, but I could perhaps be perceived like that, which is the reason I respond here) I see two ways that we can "adapt to reality", however: a) We point our users up front to non-free components they likely need b) We give users up front what they likely need Problem I see in the second approach is that we then effectively make it *harder* for those wanting to prioritize Free Software to do so, which in my opinion goes against a core principle of our community. Let's promote non-free installer more aggressively, but please let's explicitly label it as not part of the product we claim is 100% free. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature