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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #212393 > unrolled thread

How free is Debian

Started byShahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com>
First post2019-08-08 02:40 +0200
Last post2019-08-09 19:10 +0200
Articles 5 on this page of 45 — 20 participants

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

Contents

  How free is Debian Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> - 2019-08-08 02:40 +0200
    Re: How free is Debian Judah Richardson <judahrichardson@gmail.com> - 2019-08-08 03:20 +0200
    Re: How free is Debian Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-08-08 05:00 +0200
      Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-08 05:10 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-08-08 14:00 +0200
          Re: How free is Debian Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2019-08-08 14:30 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-08-08 14:50 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-08 22:50 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-08-08 15:40 +0200
      Re: How free is Debian deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-08-08 06:50 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-08 15:10 +0200
          Re: How free is Debian deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-08-09 00:30 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-09 02:10 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2019-08-09 03:20 +0200
                Re: How free is Debian Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-08-09 05:30 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-09 14:00 +0200
                Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-09 16:00 +0200
                  Re: How free is Debian Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-09 16:40 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-08-10 10:00 +0200
                Re: How free is Debian Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-08-10 10:20 +0200
                Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-10 15:00 +0200
                  Re: How free is Debian Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-08-10 16:40 +0200
          Re: How free is Debian Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2019-08-09 18:00 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-09 18:20 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-09 19:40 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-09 18:20 +0200
    Re: How free is Debian David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-08 06:20 +0200
      Re: How free is Debian Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> - 2019-08-08 06:30 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-08-08 07:00 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2019-08-08 09:40 +0200
          Re: How free is Debian Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> - 2019-08-08 15:10 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-08 15:20 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2019-08-08 15:30 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-08 15:40 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-08-10 10:00 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2019-08-08 16:50 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-08 23:10 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2019-08-09 07:30 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-08 13:30 +0200
          Re: How free is Debian Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-08 16:10 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-08 15:20 +0200
      Re: How free is Debian john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2019-08-08 09:00 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-08 10:00 +0200
          Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-08 14:00 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2019-08-09 19:10 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#212434

FromDavid Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date2019-08-08 15:20 +0200
Message-ID<ysQuJ-5H6-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#212399
On Wed 07 Aug 2019 at 21:27:34 (-0700), Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 23:11 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 07 Aug 2019 at 17:33:52 (-0700), Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> > > With respect to all the contributors, developers, hobbyist and
> > > users,
> > > who made GNU/Linux and Debian and all other distributions possible,
> > > here lies a humble, ignorance and yet curious question.
> > > 
> > > Are all binaries in the kernel code were writing from scratch? Are
> > > there any binary blobs in the kernel that it was given to
> > > developers?
> > > If amd64 license is not free, how is it that we have amd64
> > > microcode in
> > > the debian free?
> > 
> > It isn't free; look:

> > [ … snip …]

> > > and if they are not the same, are we using the full
> > > potential of our hardware?
> 
> Very well said. If debian free is not using amd64 microcode, so what
> kernel module runs my cpu as 64bit?

Here's an analogy:

You buy stretch on DVDs on 2017-06-17 and install just "main" on an
isolated machine to do a particular task. Two years later, the
installation is still working just as it was.

Over those two years, however, you could have upgraded the
installation with point-releases, and at any time you could have
chosen to add in non-free amd contrib. These would all have improved
the system (some would say polluted it in the case of non-free).
Most people would consider the point-releases as essential if you ever
connect the system to the Internet.

The first paragraph corresponds to your buying a CPU, which itself
contains what you could call an Operating System in its firmware,
and that OS will already be long in the tooth when you buy it
off the shelf. However, the CPU is still running today, and you expect
another ten years of solid performance.

The second paragraph corresponds to your downloading packages of
microcode and allowing them to be installed when you boot the CPU.
Some people would consider these microcode updates as essential if
the systems are to be connected to the Internet. Others do without.

Cheers,
David.

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

#212403

Fromjohn doe <johndoe65534@mail.com>
Date2019-08-08 09:00 +0200
Message-ID<ysKyZ-1PZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#212398
On 8/8/2019 6:11 AM, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 07 Aug 2019 at 17:33:52 (-0700), Shahryar Afifi wrote:
>> With respect to all the contributors, developers, hobbyist and users,
>> who made GNU/Linux and Debian and all other distributions possible,
>> here lies a humble, ignorance and yet curious question.
>>
>> Are all binaries in the kernel code were writing from scratch? Are
>> there any binary blobs in the kernel that it was given to developers?
>> If amd64 license is not free, how is it that we have amd64 microcode in
>> the debian free?
>
> It isn't free; look:
>
> Package: amd64-microcode
> Version: 3.20160316.3
> Installed-Size: 68
> Maintainer: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>
> Architecture: amd64
> Recommends: initramfs-tools (>= 0.113~) | dracut (>= 044) | tiny-initramfs
> Breaks: intel-microcode (<< 2)
> Description: Processor microcode firmware for AMD CPUs
> Description-md5: 093f190e183c7cfeca05b52ecd2116e3
> Section: non-free/admin
>          ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
> Priority: extra
> Filename: pool/non-free/a/amd64-microcode/amd64-microcode_3.20160316.3_amd64.deb
>                ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
> Size: 31116
> MD5sum: 7056e449d8bac87d85a4e434379d0e6e
> SHA256: f7bddaf712ffaa833ff65ef94bdd86720d55c2c56ae982c3db58181bbe70f147
>

None-free is a repository that you enable if you need to, it is not the
default in Debian if I am not mistaking.

--
John Doe

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

#212408

From<tomas@tuxteam.de>
Date2019-08-08 10:00 +0200
Message-ID<ysLv3-2qS-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#212403

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

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 08:50:05AM +0200, john doe wrote:

[...]

> None-free is a repository that you enable if you need to, it is not the
> default in Debian if I am not mistaking.

This is correct, and I, for one am glad Debian has kept up to pressure
to changing it ("but... but... Ubuntu can do, why can't Debian?").

Sometimes freedom isn't to be had without knowledge. It can be sometimes
inconvenient, but we're here to help each other and try our best...

This is one of those cases: if you're using a piece of non-free software,
you should know about it, and you should know which buy decision led to
it (so you can take that into account at your next buy decision).

Soapbox free now. Next, please ;-)

Cheers
-- t

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

#212423

FromJohn Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com>
Date2019-08-08 14:00 +0200
Message-ID<ysPfk-4L8-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#212408
tomas writes:
> This is one of those cases: if you're using a piece of non-free
> software, you should know about it, and you should know which buy
> decision led to it (so you can take that into account at your next buy
> decision).

There is also a practical reason to keep non-free for the benefit of
downstream distributions, CD makers, etc.  Some of the licenses on stuff
in non-free make it ok for Debian to distribute the stuff but attempt to
place restrictions on what recipients can do with it.  As long as you
stick to Main you need only read the DFSG to know what your
redistribution rights are.  As soon as you go into Non-free you have to
study each license.

This can even hit end-users.  Non-free licenses can contain clauses
barring "commercial use" (without defining the term) and other similar
restrictions.  This package is not in Debian, but I recall a "free" text
editor that was distributed on the Net back in the last century that
barred use by the South African police.  It would have qualified for
inclusion in Non-free.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#212523

FromAlessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Date2019-08-09 19:10 +0200
Message-ID<ytgyS-5j7-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#212423
On Thu 08/Aug/2019 13:50:40 +0200 John Hasler wrote:

> tomas writes:
>> This is one of those cases: if you're using a piece of non-free
>> software, you should know about it, and you should know which buy
>> decision led to it (so you can take that into account at your next buy
>> decision).
> 
> There is also a practical reason to keep non-free for the benefit of
> downstream distributions, CD makers, etc.  Some of the licenses on stuff
> in non-free make it ok for Debian to distribute the stuff but attempt to
> place restrictions on what recipients can do with it.  As long as you
> stick to Main you need only read the DFSG to know what your
> redistribution rights are.  As soon as you go into Non-free you have to
> study each license.
> 
> This can even hit end-users.  Non-free licenses can contain clauses
> barring "commercial use" (without defining the term) and other similar
> restrictions.  This package is not in Debian, but I recall a "free" text
> editor that was distributed on the Net back in the last century that
> barred use by the South African police.  It would have qualified for
> inclusion in Non-free.


Perhaps we'd need an Almost-free, or Semantically-free category in
order to distinguish blind redistributablity from actual
devil-may-be-here stuff.  I'm thinking GNU doc in particular...


Best
Ale

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web