Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #240190 > unrolled thread

foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware <loushanguan2015@sina.com> - 2021-09-20 08:30 +0200
    Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-09-20 09:30 +0200
      Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware lou <loushanguan2015@sina.com> - 2021-09-20 11:10 +0200
        Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware Stanislav Vlasov <stanislav.v.v@gmail.com> - 2021-09-20 11:50 +0200
          Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware lou <loushanguan2015@sina.com> - 2021-09-20 13:00 +0200
            Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-09-20 13:20 +0200
            Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2021-09-20 13:30 +0200
            Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-09-20 21:30 +0200
              Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2021-09-21 17:10 +0200
                Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-09-21 17:50 +0200
                Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-09-21 21:00 +0200
                Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2021-09-21 21:30 +0200
                  Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-09-21 21:50 +0200
                    Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware lou <loushanguan2015@sina.com> - 2021-09-22 02:20 +0200
                      Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-09-22 07:10 +0200
                      Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-09-22 08:40 +0200
                        Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware lou <loushanguan2015@sina.com> - 2021-09-24 10:30 +0200
                          Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-09-24 14:10 +0200
                            Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2021-09-24 15:50 +0200
                              Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-09-24 16:10 +0200
                    Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2021-09-22 07:40 +0200
            Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-09-20 22:30 +0200
      Message display settings by character encoding (was Re: foolish problem  with installer: can't load firmware) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-20 13:20 +0200
        Re: Message display settings by character encoding (was Re: foolish  problem with installer: can't load firmware) Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-09-20 13:40 +0200
        Re: Message display settings by character encoding (was Re: foolish  problem with installer: can't load firmware) David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-09-20 21:20 +0200
        Re: Message display settings by character encoding (was Re: foolish  problem with installer: can't load firmware) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2021-09-21 14:40 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#240190 — foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

i start bullseye installer from usb stick
it tells me to insert usb stick containing firmwarei fail in this step many times
after many failures, i learn that firmware shall be in vfat partition, not ext4and i have to remove installer stick so that installer can read firmware stickthough i have many usb ports

after firmware are successfully loaded and after some stepsinstaller complains it can't read installer stickno matter how quickly i insert installer stick after loading firmware
is there some usb command that can help after i remove and insert installer stick?

--------------------------------

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#240191

On 9/19/21 11:14 PM, loushanguan2015@sina.com wrote:
> i start bullseye installer from usb stick
> it tells me to insert usb stick containing firmwarei fail in this step many times
> after many failures, i learn that firmware shall be in vfat partition, not ext4and i have to remove installer stick so that installer can read firmware stickthough i have many usb ports
> 
> after firmware are successfully loaded and after some stepsinstaller complains it can't read installer stickno matter how quickly i insert installer stick after loading firmware
> is there some usb command that can help after i remove and insert installer stick?
> 
> --------------------------------
> 


Your message displays strangely on Thunderbird (oversized Courier 
font?).  Please verify that your e-mail client is configured to compose 
messages in plain text (e.g. ASCII), not HTML.


You need two USB sticks -- one with the Debian installer and another 
with the firmware.


I assume that you have successfully copied a Debian installer ISO image 
onto a USB stick.  Do not remove the Debian installer USB stick until 
prompted to do so at the end of installation.


The firmware stick should be "factory formatted" with VFAT (e.g. Microsoft):

2021-09-20 00:05:18 root@dipsy ~
# lsblk -f /dev/sdb
NAME   FSTYPE LABEL UUID                                 FSAVAIL FSUSE% 
MOUNTPOINT
sdb
`-sdb1 vfat         ****-****                              58.3G     0% 
/media/dpchrist/****-****


Copy the firmware *.deb files to the root directory of the firmware USB 
stick:

2021-09-20 00:05:19 root@dipsy ~
# ls /media/dpchrist/****-****/*.deb | head
/media/dpchrist/****-****/amd64-microcode_3.20181128.1_amd64.deb
/media/dpchrist/****-****/amd64-microcode_3.20181128.1_i386.deb
/media/dpchrist/****-****/atmel-firmware_1.3-4_all.deb
/media/dpchrist/****-****/bluez-firmware_1.2-4_all.deb
/media/dpchrist/****-****/dahdi-firmware-nonfree_2.11.1.0.20170917-1_all.deb
/media/dpchrist/****-****/firmware-amd-graphics_20190114-2_all.deb
/media/dpchrist/****-****/firmware-ath9k-htc_1.4.0-97-g75b3e59+dfsg-3_all.deb
/media/dpchrist/****-****/firmware-atheros_20190114-2_all.deb
/media/dpchrist/****-****/firmware-b43-installer_019-4+deb10u1_all.deb
/media/dpchrist/****-****/firmware-b43legacy-installer_019-4+deb10u1_all.deb


Insert the firmware USB stick when prompted.  Then press <Enter>.  I 
find the user interface confusing at this point -- it should indicate 
that firmware has been loaded, but instead prompts for a firmware USB 
stick again.  I guess that is so you can insert multiple firmware USB 
sticks (?).  Remove the USB firmware stick and choose the option that 
you do not want to load firmware.  The installer should apply the 
firmware and proceed with the install.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240192

Thank David, i have installed successfully by hard disk method

installer using hard disk method can read firmware in ext3 partition

i have 2 usb sticks, one for installer, the other for firmware, but 
bullseye installer can't read firmware stick

last mail is sent thru mail provider's web interface

i prefer Thunderbird because web interface has ad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240193

2021-09-20 14:04 GMT+05:00, lou <loushanguan2015@sina.com>:
> installer using hard disk method can read firmware in ext3 partition

May you take installer with integrated firmware?

https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/

-- 
Stanislav

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240194

On 9/20/21 5:38 AM, Stanislav Vlasov wrote:
> 2021-09-20 14:04 GMT+05:00, lou <loushanguan2015@sina.com>:
>> installer using hard disk method can read firmware in ext3 partition
> May you take installer with integrated firmware?
>
> https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/
>

Thanks, but it's unofficial, and it makes me feel uneasy

fedora includes firmware, and i think they are serious about open source

why debian can't do the same?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240195

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 06:48:03AM -0400, lou wrote:
> 
> On 9/20/21 5:38 AM, Stanislav Vlasov wrote:
> > 2021-09-20 14:04 GMT+05:00, lou <loushanguan2015@sina.com>:
> > > installer using hard disk method can read firmware in ext3 partition
> > May you take installer with integrated firmware?
> > 
> > https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/
> > 
> 
> Thanks, but it's unofficial, and it makes me feel uneasy
> 
> fedora includes firmware, and i think they are serious about open source
> 
> why debian can't do the same?

They literally *did*, and you were given the URL for the image with
non-free firmware included.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240197

Hi,

lou wrote:
> fedora includes firmware, and i think they are serious about open source

Open Source is not necessarily Free Software.


> why debian can't do the same?

There is a checklist for what is officially acceptable
  https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

Fedora makes a special exemption for "binary firmware" in
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items?rd=ForbiddenItems


Stanislav Vlasov wrote:
> > https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmw
are/

lou wrote:
> it's unofficial, and it makes me feel uneasy

Being unofficial does not make it less safe than any other distro's official
ISO with non-free software. It's just that Debian makes a clearer distinction
between the goal to distribute purely free software and the reality that some
hardware does not work without non-free blobs which the computer has to load.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240209

On 20/09/2021 11:48, lou wrote:

> Thanks, but it's unofficial, and it makes me feel uneasy
>
> fedora includes firmware, and i think they are serious about open source
>
> why debian can't do the same?

There is nothing wrong about "unofficial" installer with non-free
software, if you are going to install that non-free software later
anyway. You either use non-free software, or you don't.

Understand what is free software, and differences to non-free and open
source:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

--
With kindest regards, Piotr.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240221

On 2021-09-20, piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>> fedora includes firmware, and i think they are serious about open source
>>
>> why debian can't do the same?
>
> There is nothing wrong about "unofficial" installer with non-free

Unofficial denotes unsanctioned, unauthorized, unauthoritative, etc., so
the term quite naturally makes some people a little wary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240222

On 21/09/2021 16:03, Curt wrote:
> On 2021-09-20, piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> fedora includes firmware, and i think they are serious about open source
>>>
>>> why debian can't do the same?
>>
>> There is nothing wrong about "unofficial" installer with non-free
>
> Unofficial denotes unsanctioned, unauthorized, unauthoritative, etc., so
> the term quite naturally makes some people a little wary.

Yeah, that's right when you think about it. That unofficial installer
contains non-free, proprietary, closed source, patented etc. code, after
all :D


--
With kindest regards, Piotr.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240234

On Tue 21 Sep 2021 at 15:03:07 -0000, Curt wrote:

> On 2021-09-20, piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> fedora includes firmware, and i think they are serious about open source
> >>
> >> why debian can't do the same?
> >
> > There is nothing wrong about "unofficial" installer with non-free
> 
> Unofficial denotes unsanctioned, unauthorized, unauthoritative, etc., so
> the term quite naturally makes some people a little wary.

Indeed. However, users can rest assured they are downloading an official
unofficial ISO that is 100% kosher.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240235

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:03:07 -0000 (UTC)
Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:

Hello Curt,

>Unofficial denotes unsanctioned, unauthorized, unauthoritative, etc., so
>the term quite naturally makes some people a little wary.

And in the context of the installation ISOs, unfortunate.  It works
well.  Or at least, that is my finding - I used the AMD64 netinstall ISO.

I think 'Unofficial' simply means in this case that, in the event of
installation failure, you can't get official support from Debian.  One
can, of course, still ask here.

Despite the 'unofficial' epithet, the ISOs are still available from the
official Debian web site.  That may assist in alleviating some of the
(perfectly understandable) reticence people will have.

Finally, let us not forget that even the official installers seek to
install non-free blobs to get certain hardware working where necessary.
The installation inevitably stalls at that point.  Hardly a good first
impression.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )      "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
        / _)rad   "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
Success defined by acquisition stinks
Money is Not Our God -  Killing Joke

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240236

On 21/09/2021 16:56, Brad Rogers wrote:
> Finally, let us not forget that even the official installers seek to
> install non-free blobs to get certain hardware working where necessary.
> The installation inevitably stalls at that point.  Hardly a good first
> impression.

Many Linux distributions are made that way. After all, we want to come
away from closed source software. Debian tries to avoid all closed
source and/or non-free software, as per The Debian Free Software
Guidelines (DFSG):

https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

--
With kindest regards, Piotr.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240243

On 9/21/21 3:49 PM, piorunz wrote:
> .
> Many Linux distributions are made that way. After all, we want to come
> away from closed source software. Debian tries to avoid all closed
> source and/or non-free software, as per The Debian Free Software
> Guidelines (DFSG):
>
> https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
>
>

Thanks to all that reply!

i still prefer official image

but it will be long time before i use installer again

PS: i think we've been using firmware without source code all the time, 
no matter how serious you are about open source. these firmware are 
installed somewhere in hardware. using only free software/firmware don't 
seem practical

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240253

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Ma, 21 sep 21, 20:14:25, lou wrote:
> 
> On 9/21/21 3:49 PM, piorunz wrote:
> > .
> > Many Linux distributions are made that way. After all, we want to come
> > away from closed source software. Debian tries to avoid all closed
> > source and/or non-free software, as per The Debian Free Software
> > Guidelines (DFSG):
> > 
> > https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
> 
> PS: i think we've been using firmware without source code all the time, no
> matter how serious you are about open source. these firmware are installed
> somewhere in hardware. using only free software/firmware don't seem
> practical

One step at a time ;)

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240257

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 08:14:25PM -0400, lou wrote:
> 
> On 9/21/21 3:49 PM, piorunz wrote:
> >.
> >Many Linux distributions are made that way. After all, we want to come
> >away from closed source software. Debian tries to avoid all closed
> >source and/or non-free software, as per The Debian Free Software
> >Guidelines (DFSG):
> >
> >https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
> >
> >
> 
> Thanks to all that reply!
> 
> i still prefer official image

We all prefer official image. It is on us all to put some
pressure on hardware vendors to make that possible!

To offer another perspective: each official Debian package
has a maintainer, meaning that there is someone who can look
at the source code and fix problems for us. Since the software
contained in those packages is free, you, too, can give them
to your friends (and modify them to help your friends).

With non-free packages, they can't look into the source or
fix things, so they can't give you the same kind of
warrantees. Besides, the license perhaps forbids you from
modifying that software or giving it to your friends.

So it makes sense to have an unofficial repository, as a
heads-up to you: "careful: this one doesn't come with the
usual Debian warrantees: talk to Nvidia, or whatever vendor
to see what you are allowed to do".

> but it will be long time before i use installer again

Who knows :)

> PS: i think we've been using firmware without source code all the
> time, no matter how serious you are about open source. these
> firmware are installed somewhere in hardware. using only free
> software/firmware don't seem practical

Of course. Lots and lots. This doesn't mean it is a good thing.

Think of that American tractor company (John Deere) where you
can't exchange parts yourself because the built-in software will
notice and refuse to work. And changing that would be a copyright
violation... Think of those inkjet cartridges which have a chip
to stop you from refilling them with your own ink.

Taking always the "practical" route will lead us into full
dependency on three to four big corporations in a very short
time. We as consumers do have a bit of responsibility, too.

End or lecture ;-D

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240297

On 9/22/21 2:32 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> Of course. Lots and lots. This doesn't mean it is a good thing.
> Think of that American tractor company (John Deere) where you
> can't exchange parts yourself because the built-in software will
> notice and refuse to work. And changing that would be a copyright
> violation... Think of those inkjet cartridges which have a chip
> to stop you from refilling them with your own ink.
>
> Taking always the "practical" route will lead us into full
> dependency on three to four big corporations in a very short
> time. We as consumers do have a bit of responsibility, too.
>
> End or lecture ;-D
>
> Cheers
>   - t

i don't think your lecture is convincing

some claim they can read binary or reverse-engineer

forcing user to use some ink might violate anti-monopoly law

if printer maker don't enjoy monopoly, user can choose other printer

excluding non-free firmware in official image make little difference to 
hardware manufacturers

it only cause inconvenience to user

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240301

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 04:23:28AM -0400, lou wrote:

[...]

> i don't think your lecture is convincing

OK.

> some claim they can read binary or reverse-engineer
> 
> forcing user to use some ink might violate anti-monopoly law

This sounds like someone pro-regulations...
> 
> if printer maker don't enjoy monopoly, user can choose other printer

...while this more like pro-unrestricted market.

So you're hedging your bets, aren't you ;-)

> excluding non-free firmware in official image make little difference
> to hardware manufacturers

It's not about making a difference to hardware manufacturers.
It's about making a difference to you and me, i.e. the users.

If I download an official Debian and copy it to an USB stick,
I *know* I can give it away, sell it, modify it without getting
into legal hassle.

> it only cause inconvenience to user

As soon as there is non-free software in it, all bets are up.
So keeping the repositories clearly separate is a service
to us.

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240307

On 2021-09-24, <tomas@tuxteam.de> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
>
> As soon as there is non-free software in it, all bets are up.

Actually, the idiom is, and rest assured I'm chiming in purely informatively
here, as I myself navigate in a foreign tongue *avec plus ou moins de
bonheur*, "all bets are off."

It's the jig, normally, that is up.

:-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240310

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 01:42:50PM -0000, Curt wrote:
> On 2021-09-24, <tomas@tuxteam.de> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> >
> > As soon as there is non-free software in it, all bets are up.
> 
> Actually, the idiom is, and rest assured I'm chiming in purely informatively
> here, as I myself navigate in a foreign tongue *avec plus ou moins de
> bonheur*, "all bets are off."

En fait. Merci :)

> It's the jig, normally, that is up.
> 
> :-)

;-)

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web