Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> >> So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
> >> appears solved or possible to solve.
> >
> > As I understand it there are two problems solved by proposal A/E:
> >
> > Users who aren't aware of the firmware problem are directed by the
> > Debian website to download the free installer, they try it out, find it
> > doesn't work on their hardware and then abandon Debian in favour of
> > other distros, or ask questions about it to the Debian support channels
> > or the Debian teams involved in the image creation/distribution. They
> > always get the non-free installer eventually, but we have wasted their
> > time and ours by directing them to the free installer by default.
> >
> > Since the hardware most users use causes the first problem, the people
> > fielding these support requests see that the free installer is in most
> > cases not useful and therefore want to stop building or working on it.
>
> The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
> non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
> hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone
> else's choices and taking on the responsibility solve the consequences
> of that choice seems misguided to me. It makes it harder for users to
> experience the frustration of such hardware themselves.
How does frustation or blaming manufactores help our users?
Also, our users will not blame the manufactores. They blame us.
BTW, about choices…
Especially for (modern) Wifi hardware, there is legistlation in place that
forbids manufactores to enable users to operate outside of RF complicance.
(e.g. Tx Power, DFS). This is usually done in the firmware.
You can't expect manufactores to break regolatory rules, they do not
have the option to choose.
Sure, *some* parameters might be limitable by hardware design, but that
is generally costier. And as it is *some* parameters, not *all*, this won't
make the device compliant.
Additionally, ithey dont really have incentives to let their competitors
look into their code. Another incentive NOT to open up firmware is that
this would actually cost them money to do so and maybe make the liable
if a competitor detects that some code violates some IP…
> I disagree they
> always get the non-free installer eventually: some end up learning about
> the problem and chose better hardware. Some end up reverse engineering
> their hardware, and contributing to a free solution. Some dislike other
> distributions taking a less rigid stance on non-free works, and will
> come up with work-arounds to get Debian to work on the hardware. If
> Debian takes on itself to solve the problems with non-free hardware, I
> think we are in more difficult position to ask for a change.
The thing I experience on some of our channels where many (potential) users
are:
- Can't install, $network not detected.
- Installed it, network stopped working.
- They usually pointed to use the non-free installer as first response.
This is when they are in Debian channels.
- In non-Debian forums, the response is too often:
- Debian sucks. Just use another distro.
- Especially for gaming
Is this helping our users or does it help the free software cause if those
users just go somewhere else and asscociate Debian with "broken"?
Those are lost users, and they will never learn and then care about their
missing freedoms.
Yes, the situation could be better, but re-inforcing the current situation
won't improve that. We tried that for a very long time already.
--
tobi
Reply to: