Nice to see that pragmatism and common sense prevailed...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Jan 03, 2009 1:21 AM EDT |
Make a usable distro and people will use it. Make an ideological distro that doesn't support the hardware and, much like GNewSense, it will be ignored. |
| klhrevolution Jan 03, 2009 3:56 PM EDT |
I happen to disagree. In fact GNewSense is probably the next distro I'll hop on over towards. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 03, 2009 5:14 PM EDT |
It's crucial that Debian work. Debian already has a reputation as a wonkier distro that it really is, and announcing to the world that there's going to be hardware out there that won't work with it due to a desire for FOSS purity does the project a disservice. I wouldn't mind either a forked "totally-free Debian" or such an option during the install. Like I've said many times, the freedom should be in the hands of the user. Mainline distros getting too high and mighty about what they think users should have is a recipe for fewer users. The approach that I think works for FOSS operating systems is: a) educating users about the difference between open and closed drivers and which companies cooperate and participate and which do not b) structuring the distro so it informs users about the status of hardware and drivers and gives them a choice as to what to do (install or not) c) actively participate in the coding of FOSS drivers and encourage others to do so Excluding blobs from the Debian kernels would only make Ubuntu more relevant than it already is (and that's pretty darn relevant). |
| tuxchick Jan 03, 2009 6:07 PM EDT |
Steven, Debian already has a simple, elegant mechanism for giving users control of what goes on their systems-- the main Debian distribution is supposed to be 100% Free software. For folks who want unsupported third-party or non-Free software there are separate repos just for that. What this manuever does is take away choice from users who value Free software, so it is a step backwards. There is nothing pragmatic about this. It's certainly expedient-- a quick short-term hack with little long-term benefit, and a dubious short-term benefit. How will this lead to compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines? Is there a plan in place to replace the sourceless kernel firmware blobs with firmware that complies with the DFSG? Not in the Debian project. Is there a shortage of Linuxes that are larded with closed, proprietary software? Please, someone say yes and make me laugh. Are any of the major Linux players discussing how to magically transition from closed proprietary stuff to FOSS? Pretty much no; the two active projects that I know of are Greg K-H's 'Free Linux Driver Development' project, and the Linux Wireless project. Both have been successful at creating sound development frameworks and attracting hardware vendors. Otherwise all I hear is "more proprietary crap in Linux! More! Quick, before the crazy freedom zealots start yapping again!" I think Steven and Caitlyn are making a common mistake, you're confusing figuring out what sorts of compromises lead to fulfilling a goal, and compromising one's core principles. Nobody should ever have to compromise their core principles. IMO the majority of the Linux world has become more about free as in freeloader than free as in freedom, to the detriment of Linux and FOSS. |
| bigg Jan 03, 2009 6:38 PM EDT |
I agree with TC. gnewsense boots and runs just fine on all of my hardware. Same for Fedora. Debian's objective is not to get the greatest number of users - if they wanted that, they'd be in the Windows reseller business. OTOH, it doesn't seem right to implement with little warning the policy of ripping out pieces that might be needed by some users. But basically I agree with the point that free software types such as myself are under attack from the militant pro-blob forces who want to bring civilization to the free software tribes, as though we don't know what's good for us. Five years ago binary blobs may have been important. Today you can go to your local Best Buy and purchase a laptop with Intel graphics and Intel wireless and have no use for binary blobs. Everything just works on my wife's latest laptop running a Fedora live CD. I'd like to put emphasis on this quote, "What this manuever does is take away choice from users who value Free software". It certainly does, and there are VERY pragmatic reasons for valuing free software. You can disagree with RMS, but it is difficult to find anything he has ever said that is not backed up by an example showing the practical reasons for going with the open solution. |
| KernelShepard Jan 03, 2009 8:51 PM EDT |
tuxchick: What if their core principles are that a computer should be useful? Not everyone believes that all software should be free software. There are reasons to run Linux other than "software should be free". Different strokes for different folks, and all. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 03, 2009 8:58 PM EDT |
IMHO the best compromise is to make it optional but built-in at the same time. E.g, the installer scans your system for hardware and tells you about any bits of hardware that require blobs or even non-free software to run. Then it offers to install those blobs or non-free bits but the default is set to "no". Ubuntu is *almost* there. They do just this on the desktop, but it's not in their installer yet. It should be there as well. Depending on the hardware you have it could install a non-blob kernel or a kernel that includes the blobs. Same goes for video hardware, network drivers and printers (I just found out that my new HP M1120n printer, while supported by hplip/hpijs, still needs a non-free driver). Offer the user the choice, explain the issue and default to FOSS only. And integrate, integrate, integrate. |
| tracyanne Jan 03, 2009 9:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:IMHO the best compromise is to make it optional but built-in at the same time.... Mandriva informs you, during the final install process (configuration, just prior to the reboot) that non free (with short explanation) drivers are available,and you have a 'Yes/No' choice to use/not use. You also get this message if you change the video card. |
| caitlyn Jan 04, 2009 1:24 AM EDT |
KernelShepard hit the nail on the head. I don't agree with the Free Software Foundation. I don't believe there is anything evil or intisically wrong or unethical about intellectual property or proprietary software for that matter. I use Linux and support Open Source Software because I see it as the proverbial "better mousetrap". The ability to look at the source leads to peer review and innovation in a way closed software does not. OTOH, that does not mean I view closed software as evil or immoral. The FSF purists are a very loud, very vocal minority of Linux users. I respect their views. However, I see them as wanting to restrict my freedom of choice in insisting that distros maintain a level of purity. So, yes, since I don't share those I'm not compomising anything, am I? |
| tuxchick Jan 04, 2009 1:52 AM EDT |
Caitlyn and kernelshepherd, you are missing the point. You can have all the proprietary software in your Linuxes that you want. Debian lets you have it the easy way. Ubuntu also lets you fetch it the easy way, and according to TA so does Mandriva. Most newer distributions package gobs of proprietary stuff by default. It's all there, as easy as pie. It's the folks who want only Free software that are having more and more roadblocks thrown in their way. You also miss the point about Debian's own core policies as spelled out in the DFSG, which state that Debian Main is to be 100% Free. It never has been, thanks to kernel blobs and other random bits I forget now, but that has always been the goal, and people working to making it a reality. Now it seems they're giving up, or at the least are in a massively disorganized state, which is not a good thing. I'm disappointed that both of you are so dismissive of supporting other people's choices. The way Debian, Ubuntu, and Mandriva handle the Free/non-free issue all aim to make it possible for all users to 'have it their way'. Your way is the way that restricts choice-- why do you act like someone is taking something away from you, when they're not? You might also spend some time pondering on how all of this great FOSS came into existence in the first place. It wasn't magic. |
| azerthoth Jan 04, 2009 2:06 AM EDT |
TC, I was about to agree with you, and on the point of Debian seeming to cave on 'main' being 'free' I still do. It is a stated aim and goal for them, it should not be an item for debate at all. However on the rest, I see no reason why every single distro should be forced to pander to the zealots and purists, that just removes freedom in another form. |
| bigg Jan 04, 2009 9:31 AM EDT |
"Different strokes for different folks, and all." Couldn't have said it better myself. So remind me again why I should be _forced_ to have binary blobs on my computer. The argument in this thread, as set out in Caitlyn's first post, is that it is not pragmatic under any circumstances to have a completely free distribution. All distros should force the non-free stuff on the users whether they want it or not because that is 'pragmatic'. You still have the choice to run a non-free Debian system if main is completely free. Is it possible to click a couple of buttons and remove everything that is non-free? Not that I am aware. Note also that Mandriva has a completely free edition, the non-free stuff doesn't come with all editions. |
| TxtEdMacs Jan 04, 2009 9:53 AM EDT |
Wow, the Silent Majority has arrived to set the skewed World of Free & Open Source Software* straight. It's just gimme what I need and keep your damn ideas on human behavior to yourself. please! No nut cases wanted. And about Intellectual property where I assume from the words spilled there is no doubt. However, I wonder if these calm voices, telling all that proprietary is fine as long as it is merged with the free stuff they want, were aware that in older U.S. patent law if the owner of the patent could demonstrate the device worked despite the presence of major factual errors? If their explanation could be shown to be utter b.s, when someone else later discovered the true explanation the patent still stood. Moreover, ideas were unpatentable. Now that the world has reversed its axis, for consistency if intellectual property were as substantiative as these voices assert should not device patents be rescinded when the physical conjecture that explained their actions were shown to be false? Seems reasonable to me, but what do I know? Just asking, don't be offended, oh wise and great mentor muses. You that explain to all how this world works to all us ignorant fools such as I. Will you forgive my ignorance and abject stupidity, because I failed to see the wisdom of your words? To be honest I am still having trouble taking either of your seriously, so forgive me at least for that transgression, please. * whatever that really means |
| dinotrac Jan 04, 2009 11:19 AM EDT |
This one causes me very little grief, though it does make me scratch my head. I stopped using Debian years ago because its politics screwed with my KDE desktop. Haven't looked back, and can't imagine ever using Debian again, but... That doesn't mean I'm not glad to have it around -- politicking, bickering, freedom-poking and all that good stuff. I am perfectly happy to use opensuse, but... Where is pressure for free drivers (and firmware) going to come from if Debian rolls over? Debian was never the easiest, most convenient, or popular distribution. It was the free one. It's influence has always gone beyond it's user population, and, as the basis for other distros, that remains true today. |
| krisum Jan 04, 2009 3:38 PM EDT |
@bigg, @carla and others I think you have misunderstood the issue. Quoting: So remind me again why I should be _forced_ to have binary blobs on my computer.I don't see how the choice voted actually does that. If there is hardware that requires those bits to function at all then those blobs can be added -- note that these bits are never installed in debian by default. The real issue was whether the binary blobs should be removed completely from lenny (including from non-free) or not. Since the source for these is not available (note "removal of sourceless firmware" in the resolution) it is problematic to use them with kernel which is GPL. Last I saw the debian installer does not include proprietary firmware (maybe a few which I may have missed), so the vote does not address (and was not supposed to) that issue which is particularly limiting for users whose internet connection won't work without the proprietary firmware. @carla Quoting: Debian lets you have it the easy way. ... Now it seems they're giving up, or at the least are in a massively disorganized state, which is not a good thing.No the issue was complete removal of firmware since it is non-compliant with kernel. The option chosen assumes it to be compliant to allow hardware to work till lenny's release and resolve the issue in future. Quoting: You also miss the point about Debian's own core policies as spelled out in the DFSG, which state that Debian Main is to be 100% Free. It never has been, thanks to kernel blobs and other random bits I forget now, but that has always been the goal, and people working to making it a reality.Debian main was and is still 100% free. I have never seen proprietary firmware in debian main. Quoting: Now it seems they're giving up, or at the least are in a massively disorganized state, which is not a good thing.The resolution adopted reads that: "We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of Debian Lenny as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG". Sure it is a stop-gap measure but I fail to see how this compromises on core principles. IMO even keeping these bits only in non-free is not enough (which was not the actual issue here as I have mentioned) and a better approach will be for debian installer to include non-free bits as will be necessary for at least a working internet connection, and then allow the user the choice of allowing use of proprietary firmware for hardware that has no FOSS drivers. edit: A couple of clarifications -- a) notice that the issue is really about *unresolved* firmware whose license is DFSG but whose source is still not available; in essence the resolution adopted assumes that in absence of more information the source can be obtained in future from upstream, b) I was not accurate above in presenting the issue, and in particular the resolution is not about firmware that has been determined to be proprietary and not DFSG compliant (which will either not be present or be in non-free), rather about unresolved firmware bits only and that too whose license is already DFSG compliant as mentioned |
| KernelShepard Jan 04, 2009 3:48 PM EDT |
Tuxchick: I'm not missing the point at all. There's a place for fully-free software distros just like there's a place for mixed distros. I wouldn't want either side to have to sacrifice their beliefs. My response only served to try and point out to you that not everyone feels the way you do about how distros should be "pure". I'm also fully aware of how free software came about and I'm also well aware that a lot of developers contributing to F/OSS do so for different reasons. Some feel that F/OSS is the technical better way to produce software while others feel that it is the moral thing to do, and the rest are somewhere in between. |
| gus3 Jan 04, 2009 4:25 PM EDT |
Caitlyn:Quoting:The ability to look at the source leads to peer review and innovation in a way closed software does not. OTOH, that does not mean I view closed software as evil or immoral.You might think otherwise when a security hole in that closed, un-reviewed software lets a worm/trojan/virus bulldoze your partition table into a pile of rubble. Oh, and the developers already knew about it, but the company will make you pay for the fix. After all, that's part of their business plan (but really, more like "business as usual"). Obvious holes, that I'm not allowed to fix on my own? Tell me, with a straight face, that's not evil. |
| krisum Jan 04, 2009 5:05 PM EDT |
@gus3Quoting: Oh, and the developers already knew about it, but the company will make you pay for the fix. After all, that's part of their business plan (but really, more like "business as usual").Does not say much about closed source, rather only about the company in question. Quoting: Obvious holes, that I'm not allowed to fix on my own? Tell me, with a straight face, that's not evil.The software industry does not need to be unique in this regard. Much like most other products, there are things that can be fixed by technical people of the field (in software by configuration/settings or enhancements using plugins or whatever) and there are things that can be fixed only by the company that manufactured the product. Computer hardware also works the same way e.g network/storage/... devices or even processor can have such problems. edit: Even if your point be granted, all you have argued for is to make the source available to the customer in some way (e.g. even under an NDA) and not that non FOSS software is evil. |
| KernelShepard Jan 04, 2009 5:12 PM EDT |
gus: No, the people who are immoral in your example are the people who wrote the worm/trojan/virus/etc. And keep in mind that just because something is F/OSS doesn't mean it's not vulnerable to the same security problems. Nor does it mean that the developers will bother to fix the security holes that they know may exist. |
| gus3 Jan 04, 2009 6:19 PM EDT |
KS and caitlyn, I'm not questioning the immorality of said authors. To use the famous car analogy, it's rather like having non-functional locks on your car doors. The salesman doesn't tell you about it, even if he knows, until after you've purchased the car. You found out about it only by accident, when you thought you locked the doors, but it still came open in your hand. When you bring it to his attention, he informs you that the fix for it will cost about US$4,000, on a car that already cost you $25K. Or you can buy the next model, with the fix already in place, for $38K. Or, you can take your chances against nobody vandalizing your car. But you are not allowed to tear the doors open and fix the locks yourself. You're not even allowed to pay someone else to fix it (except parties "certified" by [paying a bribe to] the car maker). It's just a real-life re-work of Bastiat's example of the broken window. http://mises.org/web/2735 What's more, if you do try to fix the doors yourself, ownership of the car will revert to the dealer automatically, and any remittance of your payments will be extorted back in the form of "administrative fees". ...and when you complain to the state Attorney General about it, all you hear is "didn't you read the contract before you signed it?". |
| KernelShepard Jan 04, 2009 7:28 PM EDT |
OK, gus, it sounds like you've had a really bad experience with a used cars salesman. I'm sorry for your loss, but it doesn't make closed-source software evil. |
| caitlyn Jan 04, 2009 8:59 PM EDT |
Tuxchick: My understanding of the vote was the same as krisum's. The vote wasn't about forcing anyone to install anything. It was about whether or not to include firmware with no source and similar modules at all. So the situation is the opposite of what you describe: Free Software enthusiasts get a free system either way. If the vote had been as you would have liked a large subset of users would have a distro that simply wouldn't work on their hardware. I have no problem with the way Mandriva or Ubuntu alert users to the need for a binary blob and leave the choice with the user. I actually think that's pretty much the ideal situation. Forcing the matter, one way or the other, isn't. Debian is now somewhere in between. IMHO it needs to be handled by the installer. Having a driver in the non-free repository doesn't help if you can't get your system up and running to get at the repository. If you believe that adoption of Linux is a worthwhile goal, and I do, then having distros mostly "just work" is very important. I don't have actual figures but I suspect gNewSense, essentially Ubuntu with everything proprietary stripped out, has a tiny user base. There are other fully free distros that at least add value elsewhere. Ututo, which has also been touted by FSF, would be a good example. Still, if it doesn't work on my hardware I am not going to run it, end of discussion. I expect that is how most users look at operating systems. If they don't work they are useless. Gus: Proprietary software does not equate to insecure software. Microsoft is really cavalier abot security but there are other vendors who are anything but. Sun, HP, IBM, and SGI (four I know well) all issue patches frequently and on a timely basis. All also bundle their patches quarterly or semiannually for cuustomers who prefer that approach. All understand that their operating systems and enterprise software are used in places that have very high levels of security and have customers who are knoweldgeable enough to scream bloody murder if security is not maintained. So, no, proprietary software is definitely not evil. The business practices of certain specific companies are another matter entirely. |
| tuxchick Jan 05, 2009 12:56 AM EDT |
azerthoth, what the heck are you talking about? Who said anything about forcing all distros to pander to zealots and purists? And why is so much FUD language showing up here? Keep it up, microsoft won't need to lift a finger because the so-called supporters of Linux will be too busy tearing each other down with stupid name-calling. How about a little respect, instead of trashing people just because you don't agree with them. Nobody says "proprietary zealot fanatics" or anything like that in return; it's just the supporters of software freedom that get insulted all the time. Krisum, I've been reading and talking to people about this until my eyeballs about caved in, and nobody said anything about removing sourceless blobs completely, including from non-free-- they're all saying they're already in debian main. Not that massive confusion and misinformation are anything new.... Caitlyn, I believe that widespread Linux and FOSS adoption are worthy goals, and that FOSS succeeds on its own merits. It doesn't need to be "helped" by proprietary junk; it needs supporters and contributors who don't chicken out. Eye on the prize-- this is a marathon, not a sprint. |
| azerthoth Jan 05, 2009 2:45 AM EDT |
TC, sorry, it seems I mis-understood you. |
| krisum Jan 05, 2009 4:35 AM EDT |
Quoting: I've been reading and talking to people about this until my eyeballs about caved in, and nobody said anything about removing sourceless blobs completely, including from non-free-- they're all saying they're already in debian mainPlease read my edit above: "notice that the issue is really about *unresolved* firmware whose license is DFSG but whose source is still not available; in essence the resolution adopted assumes that in absence of more information the source can be obtained in future from upstream". edit: Yes, this resolution was somewhat confusing (as many dds also complained) and I was mislead on reading the clarification of the chosen option (viz. why does title say GPL while contents say DFSG compliant). However, I would rather see lenny released than wait for resolution of all such sourceless blobs whose license is DFSG compliant. The title and contents of the story are also misleading. |
| krisum Jan 05, 2009 5:46 AM EDT |
Carla, For the benefit of some of us here, can you provide some details of the drivers in question here? As far as I know the only violations of this kind are in the kernel package itself (meaning the problem is really in upstream package -- see http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing , or bugs like http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383403) and there are no external firmware packages in main -- please correct me by providing examples if this is wrong. So the only other alternative was to delay lenny as long as all the issues are not sorted out by either removing code from kernel on case by case basis, or by obtaining the source code. So as per my understanding I do not see in the least how the principles or purity or whatever was compromised in any way by this vote. |
| dinotrac Jan 05, 2009 9:40 AM EDT |
Wow - A discussion that can't tell the difference between good and evil/good and bad, ie, a description of relative depravity, versus qualitatvie and functional appropriateness and completeness. I can't believe people are still doing that after all these years. C'mon, people -- this is software, not a passion play or even a soap opera. Non-FOSS software is not evil. Some of the actors behind it may be evil. Non-FOSS software has some functional shortcomings that may render it bad for your computing needs, such as the inability to modify, expand without budget/legal considerations, etc. |
| tuxchick Jan 05, 2009 1:00 PM EDT |
krisum, it seems I am all mixed up on stuff, so I'm just going to shush until I figure out what's what. The sourceless kernel blob issue inspires all kinds of weird articles and discussions, with people confusing kernel blobs with userspace blobs with firmware on devices outside the kernel, such as system BIOS and wireless interfaces. Then you get all kinds of "firmwares are written in all kinds of krazy kodes, so even if the sources are available nobody knows what to do with them" and all other kinds of unrelated weirdness. Throw in the usual anti-FSF anti-GPL zealots, and it's a mess. Thanks for the clarifications. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 05, 2009 3:06 PM EDT |
I'll defer to those with more expertise, but my impression is that these binary blobs are part of the Linux kernel and were placed there by the kernel developers, with either some, most or all (but not none) of them remaining in there when those kernels are used by the Debian Project. So they're not in one repository or other; they're part of the kernel package. |
| caitlyn Jan 05, 2009 3:36 PM EDT |
Carla, you know, it's funny. I rarely if ever see anti-FSF zealotry. I don't know anyone who has serious objections to the GPL. I certainly don't. Most of the zealotry I see (and no, not from you) is the "proprietary software is evil" kind--people who feel that if I run anything that isn't true FOSS I'm the enemy, an idiot, or both. FSF has an ideology. Some people (by no means all) who are ideological get all evangelical about it and are absolutely closed to other ideas. People on the other side of the issue (myself included) are generally not pushing any sort of ideology at all. Let me get on to where we will never see eye to eye: "...and that FOSS succeeds on its own merits. It doesn't need to be "helped" by proprietary junk; it needs supporters and contributors who don't chicken out. Eye on the prize-- this is a marathon, not a sprint. " I completely disagree with this. You actually make several points here. First, proprietary doesn't equal junk. From my perspective proprietary software can be a necessary tool and a very good one. I'll give two examples. When I started my career I was a programmer developing an export operations package for a large international airfreight forwarder. That is a very narrow application that is only applicable to a very narrow industry. Such highly specialized software doesn't lend itself to the FOSS model. You will never have a lot of peers to review the software and, at that time what we were doing was groundbreaking so there were really none at all. Second, that software gave us a distinct competitive advantage over our competitors. We could give a much higher level of customer service with it. We had no interest whatsoever in sharing it. A second example would be my situation today. Since Atheros opened up their drivers I don't need anything proprietary for my old laptop. The new one doesn't need anything either since Via opened up the Unichrome source. All well and good. OTOH, my HP printer needs HP firmware. Otherwise it's a doorstop. My USB DVD burner has Lightscribe labeling capability. That requires proprietary software from either HP or LaCie. It's free as in no cost but it is definitely closed. My option is to either not use the hardware and the capabilities it offers or to use proprietary software. As I said I am not ideological at all on the issue of software so I choose the latter option. Linux, in my space, would not survive without the proprietary bits. I'd sooner run Windows than throw away the hardware. At least I know how to secure Windows. Had Linus Torvalds and Linux subscribed to FSF philosophy I would never have adopted it. Neither would most of the corporate world who wants things that just work. My career nowadays would have been supporting either commercial UNIX or Windows. Linux would never have taken off without "proprietary junk" as you call it and I would never have worked with it. So, no, FOSS does NOT stand up by itself on it's own merits UNLESS you consider interoperability with non-FOSS software to be a merit. I do. Since I don't share the ideology I have no interest in your marathon or your prize. I just need my hardware to work. If it doesn't then I am just plain not interested. |
| bigg Jan 05, 2009 4:07 PM EDT |
> they're not in one repository or other; they're part of the kernel package. That's my understanding as well. Nevertheless the kernel automatically gets installed (obviously) every time, and again by my understanding, you get the proprietary bits without so much as a warning. > Since I don't share the ideology I have no interest in your marathon or your prize. I'm not Carla, but... That implies there should not be any free distributions? I know you like Vector, can't you just use that? For many, including a lot of Debian developers, it is about building a free operating system, not exclusively about stealing users from Microsoft. I have no objection to distros that ship non-free pieces, and as a user of mostly Slackware and Arch, I don't even run a "free" OS. Nonetheless, one of the principles of Debian, OTOH, is to build a free OS. I view proprietary firmware as inconsistent with the DFSG. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 05, 2009 4:38 PM EDT |
I'd love to install TWO kernels, one totally sourced and free, and the other with the requisite sourceless blobs. That way I could boot into the blob-less kernel and see what did and didn't work. If enough hardware didn't work, I'd use the other kernel. What would really, really, really help is a complete list of all the hardware supported by a given kernel at a given period of time. That task seems impossible given the large numbers of different kernels in production at any one time. I don't know exactly how accurate they are, but I rely heavily on the hardware compatibility lists that come with the install notes for the various ports of OpenBSD. Like this one: http://mirror.planetunix.net/pub/OpenBSD/4.4/i386/INSTALL.i3... That's a pretty lengthy list. I just bought a Wi-Fi card and used this list as a guide to what I know will work. |
| bigg Jan 05, 2009 5:09 PM EDT |
@Steven Can't you do the same by booting a gnewsense live CD? You wouldn't have to install, but it seems to me that would be a way to check if anything doesn't work. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 05, 2009 5:20 PM EDT |
@Steven & bigg: Not only that, but if you install gNewSense you *should* be able to simply replace Debian's kernel with it. gNewSense comes from Ubuntu which comes from Debian. It should be the same kernel minus the blobs and with a couple of configuration settings changed. It should work for all the normal stuff. It may even work for the on-demand compiled stuff (like drivers built with module-assistant). |
| caitlyn Jan 05, 2009 5:22 PM EDT |
@bigg: Debian is the basis of lots of other distros. As such it's a bit of a special case. What I personally run or don't run really isn't the issue. If Debian removed eveything potentially sourceless from the kernel it would break the OS in terms of hardware support for a lot of users The likely result would be that a lot of folks would abandon Debian or fork it. All I did in my original post was to congratulate the user community on their common sense and pragmatism. The Debian user community made this decision and I certainly believe it should be respected. I also have posted a rather controversial opinion before, one I am going to repeat now: I believe FSF ideology and the accompanying zealotry in the Linux community hurts Linux adoption and the perception of Linux by people outside the community. I am actually of the opinion that FSF and its supporters do far more harm than good. We often conflate Free and Open Source Software and there is an overlap. I support and recommend Open Source Software (OSS) without the "F". I do not support the Free Software movement or its ideology and principles. There is a definite difference between the two. I think Steven hit on an excellent solution: offer two kernels and let the user make a choice in the installation process. Just don't hold back a major release waiting for the second kernel to be available. |
| bigg Jan 05, 2009 5:44 PM EDT |
> The likely result would be that a lot of folks would abandon Debian or fork it. And I'm saying that it doesn't make any difference if you are following the DFSG. Your religion says that the DFSG are immoral. That's fine, but Debian is guided by the DFSG. > I believe FSF ideology and the accompanying zealotry in the Linux community hurts Linux adoption and the perception of Linux by people outside the community. Too bad you can't provide examples of FSF zealotry. All I see is a bunch of guys working hard to produce free software. I see a zealot and it's not anyone from the FSF. I see someone preaching sermons, and it's not anyone from the FSF. "Anything to feed my hatred of Microsoft" is most of the preaching I see in the Linux community. By the way, you do a good job of phrasing things just to get a reaction. You don't like free software, so be it. Quickly going into name calling doesn't help the debate. If someone wants to provide free software I don't understand why you should be critical. What magical power does the FSF even have to restrict your actions? |
| caitlyn Jan 05, 2009 5:51 PM EDT |
Whoa! What an over the top reaction! I am NOT religious about software, period. That is the WHOLE POINT of what I was saying about zealotry. I agree with you that people tend to preach against Microsoft and that probably turns off Windows users who might otherwise consider Linux. I didn't phrase anything to get a reaction from you or anyone else. I expressed my opinion which is opposite from the majority here. I will grant you that contrary opinions do tend to get strong reactions. OTOH, if you didn't want to have a variety of opinions why have a discussion forum at all? I have no problem with someone providing free software. I'm not critical of that. I have a problem with saying it's free software or the highway. All I did say was that I thought the majority decision of the Debian community was a wise one. The FSF does not restrict my actions. It does, however, through the actions and word of its supporters, paint a picture of the community that is sometimes decidedly unflattering. |
| bigg Jan 05, 2009 5:57 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, Just look at the terms that you used in your earlier post "common sense and pragmatism" "zealotry" If those words are not intended to be an insult to those who disagree with you, I don't know what they _are_ intended to do. You clearly disagree with free software. You like open source. That's fine. You should realize that there can be reasonable, common sense, pragmatic, non-zealous reasons to believe in free software. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 05, 2009 6:41 PM EDT |
I love this. Dino and TC in agreement, and me with them. What a wonderful start to the new year. Principles are wonderful things. I have several very off topic ones I could spout on about for hours, but suffice to say, "Z.A.P." I started using Debian because of those principles, and unlike Dino I find that it continues to work for me. The principles behind the "main" repository are laudable, and explicit, and the fact that specific compromises are made doesn't change the fact that they must be explicitly made. The principles themselves are not compromised, save in the same way that I compromise with someone else walking on the sidewalk by stepping to the side even if they were over into "my half" of the sidewalk and by principle they should have moved over more than I. Debian is huge, and gets lots of attention. That is a GoodThing(tm, reg us pat off), it means that the principles of volunteer collaborative development and Libre software for the sake of Libre gets lots of attention. But as mentioned, no one is going to be completely satisfied by what anyone else produces (if you want it done right, you have to do it yourself). That's why there is more than one distribution. BTW, TxtEdMacs, the reason that the patent system doesn't make sense is because it's a government program. It's purpose is not to make sense, it's purpose is to serve vested interests and generate campaign contributions. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 05, 2009 8:08 PM EDT |
Quoting:Can't you do the same by booting a gnewsense live CD? You wouldn't have to install, but it seems to me that would be a way to check if anything doesn't work. That's a great idea. Even though I'm by no means a militant anti-blob advocate, I am adamant about users both knowing exactly what they're running and having the choice to run what they wish and dump what they don't want. While it's not the main reason I run it, OpenBSD has an anti-blob policy. That policy is, pardon the pun, a driving force behind developer efforts to write drivers for unsupported devices. I'm definitely going to burn a gNewSense CD. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 05, 2009 8:41 PM EDT |
FYI, Wikipedia has an entry for "binary blob": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blob From that page: Quoting:When they can neither get hardware documentation nor device driver source code from a hardware vendor, some operating system projects, including NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonFly BSD, and some GNU/Linux distributions, accept binary blobs as a fast route to the missing or enhanced functionality these blobs provide. |
| dinotrac Jan 05, 2009 10:32 PM EDT |
Whoa!!! Binary blob? I thought you were talking about Binary Bob, computer specialist to the Stars' pets. This changes everything. |
| krisum Jan 06, 2009 12:45 AM EDT |
@biggQuoting: That's my understanding as well. Nevertheless the kernel automatically gets installed (obviously) every time, and again by my understanding, you get the proprietary bits without so much as a warning.I think most of those are in the modules and it should be possible to blacklist those modules, or use gNewSense's kernel. But really you need to simply use gNewSense and not debian which is what FSF recommends anyway (notice there are other violations currently in debian like GLX). Quoting: I view proprietary firmware as inconsistent with the DFSG.That is only a part of debian's social contract. Section 5 says: Quoting: Works that do not meet our free software standards Also see section 4. So debian is not really based on the same principles as FSF and consequently your expectations are mismatched. Also notice that in most cases debian rips out offending code from kernel package (see the kernel's debian changelog) since it is not possible to have it in non-free or contrib. |
| bigg Jan 06, 2009 9:05 AM EDT |
> But really you need to simply use gNewSense and not debian which is what FSF recommends anyway I use Slackware as my main desktop. I happen to prefer free software and don't like the parroting of Mark Shuttleworth's use of "pragmatism" as an excuse to completely ignore the distinction between free and non-free software. > So debian is not really based on the same principles as FSF and consequently your expectations are mismatched. What expectations? Did you even bother to read what you are quoting? 'We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works.' Anything that is not free software goes into those repos or it doesn't belong in Debian. From what I've seen, the debate is not primarily about whether the DFSG should be abandoned. It is about whether firmware is software or hardware, in which case there is no issue, and how you define something to not be in compliance (i.e., should we assume compliance until there is evidence otherwise, or should we just define anything sourceless as a violation). You seem to be interpreting my comments as a statement that Debian should do things my way. Debian should act according to the DFSG, and not use 'pragmatism' as an excuse to ignore the DFSG. My own preferences are irrelevant. I wish those on the other side of the argument could see that their own preferences are also irrelevant. You don't ignore the rules anytime they are inconvenient, otherwise the DFSG is just a list of things that sounded good at the time. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 06, 2009 12:49 PM EDT |
Again, we're talking about the kernel, not the free and non-free repositories. Ånd again, it would be nice if Debian at the minimum made an effort to educate users as to what's in the kernel supplied by the project. I'm sure all of us would rather have open-source drivers, but it's better to be informed of the situation instead of being told, "just run gNewSense," which I plan to do later today anyway just to see what runs and what doesn't. |
| krisum Jan 06, 2009 3:47 PM EDT |
Quoting: What expectations? Did you even bother to read what you are quoting? 'We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works.' Anything that is not free software goes into those repos or it doesn't belong in Debian.You might want to consider the possibility that I have read what was quoted. So you may go back to the context of quote and see that the point being made is that debian's goals are different from FSF. A look at the social contract as a whole shows that the primary objective of debian is to promote use of free software among all computer users (see sections 4 and 5 for case in point where both free software as well as users are priority). Most people, including many of debian's founders and devs, agree that having debian not work on some hardware for large number of users does little to encourage use of free software rather is detrimental. So although deban devs will drop sourceless firmware bits for hardware which is not commonly used without much ado, support for commonly used hardware is retained till a full resolution is done by way of either obtaining the source or determining that it is not possible to obtain source. You may want to see two of the links posted earlier: http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing , http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383403 Quoting: Debian should act according to the DFSG, and not use 'pragmatism' as an excuse to ignore the DFSG. ... You don't ignore the rules anytime they are inconvenient, otherwise the DFSG is just a list of things that sounded good at the time.(it is social contract and not DFSG) I think you have lost the context of vote. It is just being optimistic that the DSFG licensed bits whose source is still not available can be procured in future so as to not delay release of lenny any further. Quoting: And again, it would be nice if Debian at the minimum made an effort to educate users as to what's in the kernel supplied by the project.A better place to start this would be in upstream linux kernel rather than debian. If anyone, its the upstream that is being sloppy here. |
| bigg Jan 06, 2009 4:14 PM EDT |
> So you may go back to the context of quote and see that the point being made is that debian's goals are different from FSF. What the #### does the FSF have to do with this? I keep posting about the DFSG and you keep talking about the FSF. Let me be clear: I'm not talking about the FSF. You are. I'm talking about the DFSG. If you want to keep debating about FSF!=DFSG with yourself, be my guest. If the DFSG doesn't apply anytime someone has hardware that doesn't work, then shipping Broadcom firmware on the Debian CD is also fine. |
| caitlyn Jan 07, 2009 7:36 PM EDT |
Some of us were framing the debate (not DFSG specific, but Free vs. Open Source) in the terms "pragmatism" vs. "purity" long before Ubuntu or Mark Shuttleworth showed up on the Linux scene. This is a very old argument, one without any chance of the two sides ever seeing eye to eye. Please don't accuse me or anyone else who has been around for a while of parroting. I believe people on both sides of this argument are capable of framing their own thoughts rationally. "You don't ignore the rules anytime they are inconvenient, otherwise the DFSG is just a list of things that sounded good at the time." Rules aren't things set in stone. This isn't a religion, remember? Rules get changed all the time to meet changing conditions. In the case of a democratic organization, which Debian is, the community can change the rules if they no longer fit the current goals of the organization or no longer make sense under current conditions. As the community membership changes and grows it only makes sense that rules may change. Does that apply to the DFSG? That's not for me to decide. It isn't for you to decide either. The Debian community will make its own decisions. At most you are I will get one vote each. |
| AnonymousPoster Jan 07, 2009 8:46 PM EDT |
The solution is simple, compile your own kernel. It's both easy and fun. Not only will you get a performance boost but you also get to choose exactly what and how it's included. You can't do that in any other OS. And Debian provides the tools to make it so simple. My custom-compiled kernel includes only 2 blobs required by my hardware and those two are compiled in as modules so that they can be removed at any time (e.g. when not needed or after a hardware upgrade). The compilation time was under 15 min and compiz runs up to 10% faster now. It took me a couple of days to read through the documentation and select the proper configuration options but now i can do it in less than half an hour. I'm writing this post because some might get the wrong impression that once they install Debian it is difficult and over-technical to adjust it to their liking. Exactly the opposite is true; Debian is one of the most easily customizable distros which is probably one of the reasons that serves as a basis for so many of them. |
| jdixon Jan 07, 2009 10:03 PM EDT |
> You can't do that in any other OS. Not even the BSD's and OpenSolaris? |
| AnonymousPoster Jan 08, 2009 12:05 AM EDT |
"Not even the BSD's and OpenSolaris?" I should have been more accurate and say 'in any proprietary OS'. BSD's and OpenSolaris I've never used so can you? And if you can how easy is the process for a common user? Also, from what I understand, BSD licenses have several restrictions not present in the GPL and are designed with integration with proprietary software in mind. Can you remove the proprietary parts(if any) and still have a functioning BSD kernel? Are BSD users interested in such questions? |
| jdixon Jan 08, 2009 12:42 AM EDT |
> I should have been more accurate and say 'in any proprietary OS... Agreed. > BSD's and OpenSolaris I've never used so can you? I can't say from personal experience, but a quick Google search for compiling bsd kernel indicates that you can. I'm not going to worry about OpenSolaris tonight. > BSD licenses have several restrictions not present in the GPL The BSD folks would argue that you have that backwards. > Can you remove the proprietary parts(if any) and still have a functioning BSD kernel? The BSD's are a diverse lot. Some of them are more strict about those matters than Linux. > Are BSD users interested in such questions? Very much so, from what I've seen of their discussions of the matter. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 08, 2009 5:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:Debian is one of the most easily customizable distros which is probably one of the reasons that serves as a basis for so many of them. That's exactly why. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!