:: Re: [DNG] Script to migrate buster …
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: tito
To: dng
New-Topics: Re: [DNG] Script to migrate buster desktop to beowulf v1.7
Subject: Re: [DNG] Script to migrate buster desktop to beowulf v1.6
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:53:59 +0200
al3xu5 <dotcommon@???> wrote:

> 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

OK Keep "status quo".


> 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