Tue, 13 Apr 2021 22:03:02 +0200 - tito <farmatito@???>:

<snip>

> Two serious question arise now?
>

> 1) should echo "ALWAYS_SET_PATH true" > /etc/default/su 
>     be added to the script to restore old su behaviour or
>      should that be left to the user

I think it should be left to the user, using the buster "pre-migration"
situation as the default choice


Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:02:54 -0400 - Steve Litt <slitt@???>:

> tito via Dng said on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 22:03:02 +0200
>
>

> >2) should non-free and contrib repos be added to sources.list
> >    or should that be left to the user  

>
<snip>
> I believe enough non-free and contrib stuff should be available at
> install time (or boot time on a live CD/flash) that the user doesn't
> need to put in additional media to get boot, network, video and sound
> working. And I believe any non-free and contrib stuff should, by
> default, be installed at install time, but before installation the user
> should be given the option of opting out of this non-free/contrib
> stuff, so if he/she only uses free software, he/she can maintain that
> principle in the installation.

I totally agree.



[ Extra OT comment START

> Stating it the inverse way, I HATE these installs that bomb because
> there's no FSF-satisfying drivers, firmware or software to handle my new
> laptop's weird hardware. And those distros that do that, their mailing
> lists always say "well just put in a thumb drive with the
> drivers/firmware!" How the KFDWOJMFOW do I know which drivers and
> firmware? I think free software purist snobs drive more people back to
> Windows than cleanse people of their non-free ways.


I agree in principle, although I believe the question is more complex.

Premise 1: From a practical point of view, I do not think the claim to
have 100% free software (in the sense of software with a copyleft or
GPL-copyleft-compatible license) in order to have freedom, privacy,
security, stability etc., makes much sense: the hardware remains not
free, the vanilla kernel has blobs, a loto of free software are actually
used for the worst nephans... and certainly it is not a license (any)
which could be able to guarantee people freedom or privacy or security...

Premise 2: For me it does not detect to talk about Windows vs Linux or
distro_a vs Distro_B: it is not about "selling" something, nor to "vote"
to establish what is better or worse.

Premise 3: The "pure" distros (those who do not provide "non-free"
software) should bring users to increase their awareness: even if this is
an important and shareable goal, the result will hardly be achieved in
this way... As already observed, if people don't already have that
awareness, the result will be that most of the users simply will change
distro or install Windows (maybe pirated).

That being said, as far as the software licenses are important for
software, people freedom and equality are linked to social and political
aspects that are generally related only partly to digital technologies,
and which are at a much broader and "high" level.

My computer is 100% free software (at least I think it is), but not for
this I think I am free; and if all the devices of the world were 100% free
software, I don't think this would be enough to give everyone freedom.

(please, sorry for length and boredom)

Extra OT comment END ]



al3xu5

--
Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and industrial design
restrictions!
____________________________________________________________________________

Public GPG/PGP key: 8FC2 3121 2803 86E9 F7D8 B624 DA50 835B 2624 A36B