:: Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firm…
トップ ページ
このメッセージを削除
このメッセージに返信
著者: Anto
日付:  
To: dng
題目: Re: [Dng] straw poll, non-free firmware for installers


On 04/06/15 03:29, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> Ok,
>
> That was interesting....
>
> Here's my thinking on the how and the why.
>
> definition of terms:
> user = the person using the installer to install Devuan.
> module = linux kernel module.
> hardware = reference to the particular chipset(s) in scope, be they
> SoC or plug in cards or devices.
> firmware = non-free binary blob that is required to be loaded by the
> standard kernel module for the hardware in scope in order for the
> hardware to operate.
> essential: required for proper operation.
>
>
> How:
> ****
>
> I will build a (udeb) package called firmware-reqd that:
>
> 1) Will provide an early detection of a select list of common
> essential hardware that:
> a) requires a non-free firmware blob
> b) is essential to make the system use-able enough to complete the
> installation to a bootable state.
>
> 2) Upon detection of said hardware, I will provide a prompt informing
> the user about the specific piece(s) of hardware detected that require
> non-free firmware to and give them the option to load that firmware
> and continue the installation or abort it at that point.
>
> 3) Only firmware meeting the above criteria will be included in the
> iso, but not used or loaded unless the operator specifically chooses
> to do so.
>
> 4) The choice to use non-free firmware will naturally lead to the
> question about whether the related firmware deb packages should be
> installed during the install. I could provide an option here,
> defaulting to yes but allowing deselection for those who may want to
> leverage the non-free firmware only during install but not on the
> running system.
>
> Note: When non-free firmware udebs are installed by debconf my
> understanding is that each of them will present the user a license
> upon which is also required to be accepted before that udeb is installed.
>
> ****
>
> Why this approach:
>
> I agree in principle about using strictly free/libre open source
> software, and where I have the choice I personaly will select hardware
> that aligns with those principles.
>
> However, I would not want my choices to become the tool that would
> punish those less informed, or unable to make the sacrifices required
> to comply entirely with that principle. To do so would be ungracious
> and unrealistic, and boils down to elitism and puritanism.
>
> Nevertheless, to silently let the installation of non-free firmware be
> done without recognition and challenge is not right either. So I see
> the most gracious approach is to inform the users and grant them the
> opportunity to choose how they would like to proceed. It gives
> opportunity for those who for conscience sake would refuse non-free
> firmware to do so, whilst not enforcing that choice an all users.
>
> I think that this is a reasonable approach, and once the above
> proposed package is ready, it is my intention to have it included in
> the official installer images we ship. Anyone that strongly objects
> can re-build their own installers without the non-free firmware
> packages added.
>
> If it is the resounding will of the community to absolutely not ship
> the default installer with this approach, then I will withdraw from
> Devuan and someone else can take over the maintenance of the packages
> I've been working on.
>
> Thanks,
>     Daniel

>
>
>
> On 03/06/15 20:37, Daniel Reurich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like a straw poll on whether we should include non-free firmware in
>> our installers by default.
>>
>> It's a deviation from Debians traditional position, but a pragmatic one
>> that shows we care about the end users.
>>
>> Keen for feedback.
>>
>>
>
>


Hello Daniel,

Your initial posting made me assume that all non-free firmwares for the
hardware that I have will be automatically installed by default without
my consent, hence my vote to exclude them from the default of the
installer and options are being provided to select them. But that is not
at all the case according to your detail approach above, which is
perfectly in line with my preference (and I hope the preference of
either the beginner or expert users as well). Thanks a lot for your hard
work on this.

Cheers,

Anto