Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.devel > #116268 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-03-07 19:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2025-03-08 21:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 46 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.devel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-03-07 19:50 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> - 2025-03-08 20:10 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-08 21:10 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Aurélien COUDERC <libre@coucouf.fr> - 2025-03-08 22:10 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-08 23:20 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2025-03-09 00:50 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> - 2025-03-09 13:40 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-09 14:30 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> - 2025-03-09 15:10 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-09 16:00 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2025-03-09 16:50 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2025-03-09 17:00 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-09 17:40 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2025-03-09 23:10 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-10 11:00 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> - 2025-03-10 11:20 +0100
Re: Salsa pipeline limit Peter B <peter@pblackman.plus.com> - 2025-03-10 15:40 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2025-03-10 16:10 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2025-03-10 09:40 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-10 12:00 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2025-03-10 12:30 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Aurélien COUDERC <libre@coucouf.fr> - 2025-03-10 18:00 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-11 16:40 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Jonathan McDowell <noodles@earth.li> - 2025-03-11 16:50 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-03-12 01:20 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-03-12 08:20 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-03-14 23:20 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-03-10 19:40 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> - 2025-03-09 17:00 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-09 17:20 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2025-03-09 17:40 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2025-03-10 10:00 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2025-03-10 12:40 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-03-10 12:50 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2025-03-10 13:40 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2025-03-10 14:40 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2025-03-10 13:40 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-03-10 15:50 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> - 2025-03-10 15:50 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2025-03-10 17:10 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2025-03-10 18:50 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-03-11 09:10 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> - 2025-03-10 10:30 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Stephan Verbücheln <verbuecheln@posteo.de> - 2025-03-10 12:50 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2025-03-09 16:00 +0100
Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2025-03-08 21:20 +0100
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 12:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KoJux-50B0-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116368 |
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 11:56:28 +0100, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> wrote: >Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> writes: >> I still haven't heard arguments why people refuse to use an installer >> that comes with non-free firmware, asks whether this firmware should >> be used, and if answered "no", none of this non-free firmware ends up >> in the installed system. The resulting system is free regardless >> whether there was non-free firmware on the installation images. > >https://www.gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html >https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/install-fest-devil.html No thank you. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aurélien COUDERC <libre@coucouf.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 18:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KoODU-53Ie-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116368 |
Le 10 mars 2025 11:56:28 GMT+01:00, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> a écrit : >https://www.gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html > >https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/install-fest-devil.html … of course … that's where the core of the disagreement lies ! We're not a religion, we're just building a distro. I think you're looking for something else than Debian. -- Aurélien
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 16:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <Kp9S1-5hNE-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116394 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Aurélien COUDERC <libre@coucouf.fr> writes: > Le 10 mars 2025 11:56:28 GMT+01:00, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> a écrit : > >>https://www.gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html >> >>https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/install-fest-devil.html > > … of course … that's where the core of the disagreement lies ! Right, I think agreement (or disagreement) with those essays explains a lot of what practical choices you make. > We're not a religion, we're just building a distro. I'm not sure what to make of that. Are you saying that Guix, Trisquel etc who strive towards these concepts are not distro's? One person's religion is another person's reasonable beliefs. I'm not sure who has the authority to judge. I'm sure some would dismiss the DFSG as religion, even if we happen to like it here. It is fine for the Debian community to dismiss the arguments described in the links above. This appears to be the case, although I hear some voices that are open to change. However if Debian dismiss those ideas, the argument that the fully free installer doesn't exist because "nobody is working on this, go create them and it will happen" does not seem valid to me. My reading is that these images doesn't exist because Debian had a vote saying they should not exist. I hope this will change in the future. Creating them won't change the decision, but it may be input to renewed discussion. /Simon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan McDowell <noodles@earth.li> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 16:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <Kpa1H-5hRg-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116419 |
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 04:29:24PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >However if Debian dismiss those ideas, the argument that the fully free >installer doesn't exist because "nobody is working on this, go create >them and it will happen" does not seem valid to me. My reading is that >these images doesn't exist because Debian had a vote saying they should >not exist. I hope this will change in the future. Creating them won't >change the decision, but it may be input to renewed discussion. Debian had a vote where we made it clear that we were ok with making use of limited project + developer resources and only testing + shipping an installer which also includes the non-free-firmware component. It wasn't "this should not exist" it was "we're not trying to double your workload, images team". I've not seen _anyone_ suggest that the project would try and stop someone from going off any building CD images that didn't include non-free-firmware, just that we don't expect the existing images team to have to expend more effort to make that happen. J. - Bored of this argument going round in circles. -- ] https://www.earth.li/~noodles/ [] I'm out of bed and dressed. What [ ] PGP/GPG Key @ the.earth.li [] more do you want? [ ] via keyserver, web or email. [] [ ] RSA: 4096/0x94FA372B2DA8B985 [] [
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-12 01:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <KphZf-5mZZ-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116419 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tuesday, March 11, 2025 8:29:24 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: > Aurélien COUDERC <libre@coucouf.fr> writes: > > Le 10 mars 2025 11:56:28 GMT+01:00, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> a écrit : > >>https://www.gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html > >> > >>https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/install-fest-devil.html > >> > > … of course … that's where the core of the disagreement lies ! > > Right, I think agreement (or disagreement) with those essays explains a > lot of what practical choices you make. > > > We're not a religion, we're just building a distro. > > I'm not sure what to make of that. Are you saying that Guix, Trisquel > etc who strive towards these concepts are not distro's? > > One person's religion is another person's reasonable beliefs. I'm not > sure who has the authority to judge. I'm sure some would dismiss the > DFSG as religion, even if we happen to like it here. > > It is fine for the Debian community to dismiss the arguments described > in the links above. This appears to be the case, although I hear some > voices that are open to change. > > However if Debian dismiss those ideas, the argument that the fully free > installer doesn't exist because "nobody is working on this, go create > them and it will happen" does not seem valid to me. My reading is that > these images doesn't exist because Debian had a vote saying they should > not exist. I hope this will change in the future. Creating them won't > change the decision, but it may be input to renewed discussion. I want to say that I agree with Simon on this. What we really need is the open hardware movement to catch up with the open software movement. That will take 20 to 30 years as the open hardware movement is just getting started. As many people have already pointed out, in most cases it isn’t practical to operate the hardware that is generally available without the use of non-free firmware. My sense is the majority of these people, perhaps all of them, are not saying they prefer hardware with non-free firmware or that they don’t support the ideals of the open hardware movement. Rather, they are making a pragmatic statement of the current state of affairs. To a certain degree, promoting official installer images without non-free firmware next to installer images with non-free firmware can raise awareness of the problem. To another degree, it probably wouldn’t do anything right now except confuse some subset of users and require extra effort from those generating the images. Debian is simply too small of an organization to make a very big splash by such a move. As has already been mentioned, nothing of substance has changed since Debian held a GR on this issue. However, if down the road open hardware with free firmware became more widely available (I’m looking at you, RISC-V, although I understand that the most likely short-term outcome is that companies will produce non-free firmware for their RISC-V processors), then it might be worth reopening the issue for consideration. -- Soren Stoutner soren@debian.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-12 08:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KpoxH-5rrp-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116426 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 05:18:49PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: >To a certain degree, promoting official installer images without non-free firmware next to >installer images with non-free firmware can raise awareness of the problem. To another >degree, it probably wouldn’t do anything right now except confuse some subset of users >and require extra effort from those generating the images. Debian is simply too small of >an organization to make a very big splash by such a move. You don't really need to generate those images, as they are equally unusable to most users whether they exist or not. Unless I guess you want people to try them to learn a lesson that their hardware is not working without non-free firmware? >As has already been mentioned, nothing of substance has changed since Debian held a GR >on this issue. However, if down the road open hardware with free firmware became more >widely available (I’m looking at you, RISC-V, although I understand that the most likely >short-term outcome is that companies will produce non-free firmware for their RISC-V >processors), then it might be worth reopening the issue for consideration. That's just processors though, and processors usually contain their non-free firmware anyway. The original issue was about hardware that doesn't contain firmware but wants it loaded from the OS. -- WBR, wRAR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-14 23:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <KqlxM-66Mf-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116430 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wednesday, March 12, 2025 12:11:37 AM Mountain Standard Time Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > >As has already been mentioned, nothing of substance has changed since Debian > >held a GR on this issue. However, if down the road open hardware with free > >firmware became more widely available (I’m looking at you, RISC-V, although > >I understand that the most likely short-term outcome is that companies will > >produce non-free firmware for their RISC-V processors), then it might be > >worth reopening the issue for consideration. > That's just processors though, and processors usually contain their > non-free firmware anyway. The original issue was about hardware that > doesn't contain firmware but wants it loaded from the OS. That’s a good point. RISC-V isn’t only being used as main CPUs, but also for all types of other things that require firmware. For example, Western Digital is spending effort to bring RISC-V to their storage controllers. https://blog.westerndigital.com/risc-v-swerv-core-open-source/ The salient point is that the open hardware movement is just in its infancy and it is going to be a long time before there are common production machines that can run securely and well without the need to use and update proprietary firmware. RISC-V has the potential to replace a lot of the current ARM micro controllers. RISC-V uses a permissive license, somewhat akin to the Apache 2.0 License in the sense that anyone who builds upon it can decide if they want the outcome of their work to be open or closed. So, some RISC-V chips will ship with open hardware schematics and information and others won’t. In addition, even if someone chooses to ship open hardware RISC-V, that doesn’t mean they will provide the source information for the corresponding firmware, so you could end up with a situation where there is an open hardware chip running non-free firmware. But it is a beginning, and some day we will probably see wireless chips and ethernet chips and GPUs and TPMs and everything else shipping open hardware running open firmware. At that point, it will be easy to advocate for installers that match. Of course, there is nothing preventing companies from adopting free and open firmware running on closed hardware. That is the current situation for most if not all of the free firmware currently shipping in Debian. But my personal opinion is that the free firmware movement won’t take off without the open hardware movement. -- Soren Stoutner soren@debian.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 19:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KoQcF-54Lv-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116368 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:56:28AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> I still haven't heard arguments why people refuse to use an installer >> that comes with non-free firmware, asks whether this firmware should >> be used, and if answered "no", none of this non-free firmware ends up >> in the installed system. The resulting system is free regardless >> whether there was non-free firmware on the installation images. > >https://www.gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html > >https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/install-fest-devil.html I've missed the second link initially, so I'll quote it for people who missed it too or decided not to click: """ My new idea is that the install fest could allow the devil to hang around, off in a corner of the hall, or the next room. (Actually, a human being wearing sign saying “The Devil,” and maybe a toy mask or horns.) The devil would offer to install nonfree drivers in the user's machine to make more parts of the computer function, explaining to the user that the cost of this is using a nonfree (unjust) program. The install fest would tolerate the devil's presence but not officially sponsor the devil, or publicize the devil's availability. Therefore, the users who accept the devil's deal would clearly see that the devil installed the nonfree drivers, not the install fest. The install fest would not be morally compromised by the devil's actions, so it could retain full moral authority when it talks about the imperative for freedom. Those users that get nonfree drivers would see what their moral cost is, and that there are people in the community who refuse to pay that cost. They would have the chance to reflect afterwards on the situation that their flawed computers have put them in, and about how to change that situation, in the small and in the large. """ -- WBR, wRAR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-09 17:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <Koreh-4OM5-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116332 |
Hi, On Sun, 2025-03-09 at 15:58 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, 2025-03-09 at 14:19 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > > Our experience seems to differ, I now run Trisquel and Guix on many of > > > my home and machines and servers. For my uses they all work without > > > non-free firmware. You have to be careful about what hardware you buy, > > > and chose your use-cases. And, yes, I use modern hardware -- i9-14900K > > > on desktop, i7 1260P and Ultra 155H in my two most used laptops, > > > ARS-111M-NR and Talos II on the server side, as well as a bunch of aging > > > Dell R630's. > > > > This class of hardware *requires* non-free firmware. Lots of it, at > > every system layer. > > Agreed. So we agree that pretty much all hardware requires non-free firmware these days. > However none of that hardware require me to load non-free > firmware from my operating system, which is my point. That situation is > sufficient for me to accept to use the hardware and install an operating > system built without non-free software on it. What is the point of this then? Does it help users to replace/rewrite non-free firmware if it is not supplied by the operating system? Or enable the user to not use non- free firmware? I don't think so. The only other reason to do this seems to be free/libre-washing by pretending the non-free firmware is not there... But I don't think that is something useful to spend resources on (but if people want to do so for unofficial installer images, they are of course free to do so; as far as I understand the FSF is in favor of free/libre-washing). Or is there some other reason to want to do this? Ansgar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-09 17:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KorxD-4P9D-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116335 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> writes: > Hi, > > On Sun, 2025-03-09 at 15:58 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> writes: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Sun, 2025-03-09 at 14:19 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> > > Our experience seems to differ, I now run Trisquel and Guix on many of >> > > my home and machines and servers. For my uses they all work without >> > > non-free firmware. You have to be careful about what hardware you buy, >> > > and chose your use-cases. And, yes, I use modern hardware -- i9-14900K >> > > on desktop, i7 1260P and Ultra 155H in my two most used laptops, >> > > ARS-111M-NR and Talos II on the server side, as well as a bunch of aging >> > > Dell R630's. >> > >> > This class of hardware *requires* non-free firmware. Lots of it, at >> > every system layer. >> >> Agreed. > > So we agree that pretty much all hardware requires non-free firmware > these days. Right, in the sense that they embed non-free software in the hardware. None of those machines require them to be loaded by me as a user for them to be useful to me. This distinction is important to me. >> However none of that hardware require me to load non-free >> firmware from my operating system, which is my point. That situation is >> sufficient for me to accept to use the hardware and install an operating >> system built without non-free software on it. > > What is the point of this then? For me there are several reasons for wanting this, which ought to be understandable for anyone reading this thread. The supply-chain security trust concern of non-free firmware is a hot topic right now. It is fine to disagree that these are concerns worthy spending time on within the Debian project, which is my perception of the vote outcome. /Simon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-09 17:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KorQZ-4Phm-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116337 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2025-03-09 17:17:52 +0100 (+0100), Simon Josefsson wrote: [...] > Right, in the sense that they embed non-free software in the > hardware. > > None of those machines require them to be loaded by me as a user > for them to be useful to me. > > This distinction is important to me. [...] > For me there are several reasons for wanting this, which ought to > be understandable for anyone reading this thread. The > supply-chain security trust concern of non-free firmware is a hot > topic right now. [...] Isn't there also a similar concern for keeping security vulnerabilities patched, even if they occur in the embedded non-free firmware that shipped on your hardware? Do you patch such vulnerable firmware manually when you happen to spot a news article about it, or just try to ignore vulnerabilities in firmware along with ignoring the presence of firmware? If you patch your firmware, do you find the process of doing so manually simple enough not to warrant assistance from your operating system? Note that if you don't trust your operating system to not install compromised firmware, then perhaps consider looking a different operating system you do trust. Your operating system has the capacity to install new firmware behind your back regardless of whether or you're personally okay with it doing so. -- Jeremy Stanley
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 10:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KoH9n-4Z0g-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116337 |
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 17:17:52 +0100, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> wrote: >Right, in the sense that they embed non-free software in the hardware. > >None of those machines require them to be loaded by me as a user for >them to be useful to me. > >This distinction is important to me. I find the version where I can choose whether to use the firmare or not superior to not having the choice. >For me there are several reasons for wanting this, which ought to be >understandable for anyone reading this thread. It isn't. I am too stupid to understand that from the explanaition given. >The supply-chain >security trust concern of non-free firmware is a hot topic right now. I would place less trust on the firmware that is on the device while it rides the supply chain from the factory to my place. >It is fine to disagree that these are concerns worthy spending time on >within the Debian project, which is my perception of the vote outcome. There are not concerns about spending time. There are no people willing to do so. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 12:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KoJEd-50Ej-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116353 |
Hi,
On 3/10/25 17:52, Marc Haber wrote:
>> It is fine to disagree that these are concerns worthy spending time on
>> within the Debian project, which is my perception of the vote outcome.
> There are not concerns about spending time. There are no people
> willing to do so.
This is, however, a long term problem.
The current state where we have free software drivers for a lot of
hardware is the result of a lot of people investing a lot of time into
creating them.
In the same way, we need to do both: support our current users by
allowing them to use non-free firmware with their current hardware,
*and* push for new devices to have free firmware.
Part of that push is informing users that what we do wrt firmware is
best-effort, support for their hardware can be dropped at any point and
the free software community cannot put them in control of their
computing experience.
We're not obligated to validate their questionable choices in buying
hardware that ships with non-free firmware, or apologize for the bad
experience they have when upstream changes something they don't like. It
is not our duty as volunteers to compensate for the shortcomings of
companies, especially companies that use our volunteer time without
compensation -- we're the *free* software community, not the *gratis*
software community.
Simon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 12:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KoJNT-50HP-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116373 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 08:36:45PM +0900, Simon Richter wrote: >The current state where we have free software drivers for a lot of >hardware is the result of a lot of people investing a lot of time into >creating them. > >In the same way, we need to do both: support our current users by >allowing them to use non-free firmware with their current hardware, >*and* push for new devices to have free firmware. > >Part of that push is informing users that what we do wrt firmware is >best-effort, support for their hardware can be dropped at any point >and the free software community cannot put them in control of their >computing experience. > >We're not obligated to validate their questionable choices in buying >hardware that ships with non-free firmware, or apologize for the bad >experience they have when upstream changes something they don't like. >It is not our duty as volunteers to compensate for the shortcomings of >companies, especially companies that use our volunteer time without >compensation -- we're the *free* software community, not the *gratis* >software community. This is also an old argument. Some rebuttals included "this didn't work so far", "good luck getting fully open firmware in sectors where it's literally impossible" and "please don't call things users have no choice over "questionable choices"". -- WBR, wRAR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 13:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KoKAh-51ep-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116375 |
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 09:33:55PM +0900, Simon Richter wrote: >We've reached the point where people are shitting on nV for the >quality of their drivers, and a kernel that has closed-source drivers >loaded is "tainted", and the last release in which we shipped >ndiswrapper was buster. That happened because those solutions were all incredibly painful, depending on the kernel version in use, losing compatibly during every second kernel upgrade, and didn't work cross-architecture. Users hated that. non-free firmware is silent and painless. Users don't care. tl;dr: The situation is totally different, we should not compare apples and peaches here. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 14:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KoLwl-51O2-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116379 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Quoting Marc Haber (2025-03-10 13:38:05) > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 09:33:55PM +0900, Simon Richter wrote: > >We've reached the point where people are shitting on nV for the > >quality of their drivers, and a kernel that has closed-source drivers > >loaded is "tainted", and the last release in which we shipped > >ndiswrapper was buster. > > That happened because those solutions were all incredibly painful, > depending on the kernel version in use, losing compatibly during every > second kernel upgrade, and didn't work cross-architecture. Users hated > that. > > non-free firmware is silent and painless. Users don't care. > > tl;dr: The situation is totally different, we should not compare apples > and peaches here. Back then some users didn't care to fix things and some found it worthy of pouring hard work into. Similar today. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 13:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KoKAh-51ep-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116375 |
Hi,
On 3/10/25 20:41, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
>> We're not obligated to validate their questionable choices in buying
>> hardware that ships with non-free firmware, or apologize for the bad
>> experience they have when upstream changes something they don't like.
>> It is not our duty as volunteers to compensate for the shortcomings of
>> companies, especially companies that use our volunteer time without
>> compensation -- we're the *free* software community, not the *gratis*
>> software community.
> This is also an old argument. Some rebuttals included "this didn't work
> so far", "good luck getting fully open firmware in sectors where it's
> literally impossible" and "please don't call things users have no choice
> over "questionable choices"".
That's my point though: the exact same rebuttals were presented in the
1990ies about getting drivers under a free license, and yet here we are,
with excellent driver support for all but a few holdouts that users
understand to be problematic due to the politics of the vendors.
We've reached the point where people are shitting on nV for the quality
of their drivers, and a kernel that has closed-source drivers loaded is
"tainted", and the last release in which we shipped ndiswrapper was buster.
This happened precisely because of free software zealotry. Free firmware
will happen the same way: by users understanding that non-free offerings
are inferior because you need to live with all the flaws they have --
and a large part of that is that the free software community is not
apologizing for the experiences users have with closed-source drivers.
Simon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 15:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KoMC6-52st-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116373 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 03:41:50PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote: >Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> writes: > >> their questionable choices in buying hardware that ships with non-free >> firmware > >Is there hardware that ships with free firmware? Seriously. Yeah, I think that should read "requires", not "ships with". Shipping with is, as explained in other emails, is good. -- WBR, wRAR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 15:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KoMC6-52st-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116373 |
Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> writes: > their questionable choices in buying hardware that ships with non-free > firmware Is there hardware that ships with free firmware? Seriously. Bjørn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 17:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reconsidering Debian’s Inclusion of Non-Free Firmware - A Call for Discussion |
| Message-ID | <KoNRw-53p3-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #116373 |
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 08:36:45PM +0900, Simon Richter wrote: >We're not obligated to validate their questionable choices in buying >hardware that ships with non-free firmware There are a lot of competing priorities here, and it's the height of arrogance to be so certain that one's own opinion is best as to try to prevent other people from making their own decisions by hiding even the existence of a mechanism to install debian on their machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.devel
csiph-web