Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
sjr@debian.org wrote:
>Free installer:
>
> - will not work with some hardware
This is a bit more complex than that. The current installer is insecure
for all systems which use Intel and AMD CPUs (i.e., with very good
approximation, almost all of them), because microcode updates provide
mitigations for speculative attacks and other various bug fixes.
> + fully supported
Is the kernel team actually willing to support systems not running
current microcode?
> + can be redistributed freely
Just like the installer containing non-free firmwares, then.
>Installer including firmware:
>
> + supports more hardware
Actually: needed to support all the most widely used hardware, i.e. x86
systems and Raspberry Pis.
> - some bugs might be unfixable
True, but OTOH not updating the system firmwares guarantees that some
known bugs are not being fixed.
> - users need to be aware of non-free licenses
I believe that "need" here is a strong word. Some users will /like/ to
know which non-free firmwares they need to use (I do!), but I cannot
think of any reasonable scenario in which somebody /needs/ to know that.
>IMO: Both installers should be on the same download page, with a brief
>explanation on who should select which (like we used to have in package
>descriptions), and possibly a longer page explaining this in more detail.
Looks like you are volunteering to build the firmware-free media then,
good to know.
--
ciao,
Marco
Reply to: