Live data from Hacker News

Debian and firmware

blog.einval.com

51–60 of 180 posts

Re: Debian and firmware

#51
Installing the non-free firmware on Debian is as easy or easier than similar installation on all other operating systems. So this is really a complaint about something that is almost as easy as it gets needing to be just slightly easier. It’s making a mountain out of a molehill.

That said, who cares if some users want it? Debian doesn’t aim to serve all users’ needs. Those who want non-free firmware bundled with the operating system can get that with one of the many Linux-based (or non Linux-based) operating systems out there. Debian just isn’t for those users. That’s fine.

Re: Debian and firmware

#52
Is the situation really that different from how it used to be? At least for me personally, if I compare to around 2008 or so when I had Debian installed as the primary OS on a desktop PC and as a toy on my Mac laptop:

> Modern laptops normally don't come with wired ethernet now.

Both then and now, on my laptop, I use Ethernet occasionally but rarely, only when I specifically need its speed or reliability advantages. The rest of the time I use Wi-Fi, which did and does require non-free firmware. Ethernet moved from a built-in port to a dongle, but my actual usage patterns have barely changed.

That said, there used to be some Wi-Fi chips that didn't require non-free firmware (just not the ones I had), whereas now there are none.

For desktops, on the other hand, it was and is worth hooking up Ethernet, making the point largely moot. (I think I used Wi-Fi on my desktop at the time, but I wished I didn't have to. Now I don't.)

> There won't be any usable graphics on the laptop's screen.

Even at the time, I saw hardware-accelerated graphics as essential, both for windowing (Compiz) and for gaming. So I used the 'nvidia' non-free driver on the PC… just as I do now. (I don't remember what the Mac had.)

Incidentally, for those who don't prioritize graphics performance over freedom, free drivers are better than they used to be. Unfortunately, they require non-free firmware – and I know this post is about firmware. But still… that seems like a win of some sort.

Re: Debian and firmware

#53
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debian is one of the top Linux distributions, so there are empirically a large number of people not being deterred. And many of the other top Linux distributions are Debian derivatives which both participate in the community and provide the alternate experience. Upholding its principles is the way Debian distinguishes itself. If you don't like it, use Mint or something.

Debian is a great project I know. But the comment that they only use debian for its principals directly suggests they would use something else if principals were not considered. Suggesting the other distros are better for their uses. Anecdotally I don't think I have ever seen a debian desktop user, and I wouldn't pick it for desktop either because they don't make it easy to get everything working like other distros d…

There are dozens of us!!

Have been using Debian as my daily driver for 5+ years on both desktops and laptops. No issues at all though I did spend some time on gnome shell to get it closer to what I prefer (multiple desktops, alt-tab behaviour, etc)

Re: Debian and firmware

#54

As a Windows/MacOS user who has moved full time to linux, I ended up on Debian Testing as my daily (going to try Fedora soon). I still live back in the days when Fedora would give you a pop up to install non-free drivers ("additional software" or something like that). I have been using Debian as my daily driver for almost 6 months now and Linux in general for years - I still have no idea how the video drivers work. I…

> What is mesa?

It is the OpenGL and Vulkan libraries. Code calls the Vulkan API, and mesa translates that into something the video driver can handle, which in turn passes the command to the video card.

> Why do people tell me not to install the video drivers from the Radeon website.

Because AMD have spent a lot of time and effort getting the drivers in the kernel, and the website drivers are old and no longer the best. There is "AMDGPU Pro" video drivers, which gives you the AMD OpenGL/Vulkan libraries, but they are generally not as good as Mesa as Mesa has everyone working on it.

> How to I update them?

AMD have spent a lot of time getting them in the kernel. You update by getting the latest version of Debian, or switching to a distribution that uses a newer kernel.

> What is going on and why isn't it as simple as Window's where I run an executable and a setup wizard does the rest?

It is a lot more simple. It is all built in. This is the beauty of collaborative development, AMD and Intel get improvements based upon each others work and they concentrate on giving us better hardware. This is also the reason that AMD works so much better on Linux than Windows, and generally AMD gives Nvidia a run for its money on Linux, at least according to the last benchmarks I saw.

Re: Debian and firmware

#55
post #10

My 5c: Debian is a free base distro. For users who want an all-batteries-included image including non-free firmware, there are derivatives like Mint and Ubuntu. If someone wants to step up and maintain [Debian+non-free-firmware] releases, this will probably be greatly appreciated but it should not come at the expense of maintaining the rest of Debian and stretching their already thin resources. One thing that could s…

Debian already maintains these images and has non-free firmware packages. They're just not enabled on the main installation disc by default. You can get non-free Debian images, they're just harder to get to. Edit: Here we go. They're "unoffical" images for sure, but they seem to be maintained similarly to the official ones. https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-in...

Yes, the OP is mentioning those as well. I don't think they, or the non-free repos, are under scope for LTS for example, though?

Re: Debian and firmware

#56

I'm usually on the FSF's side about everything, but this is one place where I disagree with them and agree with this article. A free OS with free firmware is definitely better than a free OS with proprietary firmware, but both of those are way better than a proprietary OS with proprietary firmware. By making the middle ground difficult, a lot of users have to choose between ideological purity and working hardware, an…

100% this. A decade ago I needed to replace some internal Linux file servers. I was keen to try ZFS, and so I tried BSD. Naturally on new hardware. Turns out BSD didn't support the on-board ether net. Tried a bunch of network cards from the cupboard, no support their either. Opportunity lost. Switched to Windows server (and was blown away by how polished that was, but that's another story.) I get the advantages of fr…

> On the other hand who cares? Free Software does not need to grow

Sure, there's no VC breathing down the neck of Debian, but arguably the purpose of free software is to provide software freedom for users. If people aren't able to use that free software, it's a bit pointless. Further, a (small) fraction of users grow into developers creating more free software.

To the extent non-free firmware allows more people to use free software, I don't think it's clear at all that a puritan approach to firmware is a net win for software freedom.

Re: Debian and firmware

#58
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My experience is the same as the author's: there's more today that needs non-free support to use Linux on the desktop than there was in the past. Is that a function of Linux Desktop simply being more capable nowadays? Also, there is a world of difference between not publishing signed closed-source firmware for a driver that does not exist vs having an open source driver with published firmware.

That's a good point. I think the author might be forgetting using ndis wrapper to run Windows drivers (so that's non-free software on the same machine as your OS ) for unsupported network cards. We've come farther and have new, different problems now. The situation then looked bleak much like the situation now.

That's still where we are for a lot of modern Broadcom wifi, which was also the biggest issue in the ndiswrapper days.

Re: Debian and firmware

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As bad as it is in the short term the only way we'll see long term change is to keep the friction on. It's this friction that forces the change of habit to support manufacturers who open their firmware. If it's seamless then there's no incentive to seek out the open option next time you buy. My experience is the same as the author's: there's more today that needs non-free support to use Linux on the desktop than th…

> My experience is the same as the author's: there's more today that needs non-free support to use Linux on the desktop than there was in the past. Is that a function of Linux Desktop simply being more capable nowadays? Also, there is a world of difference between not publishing signed closed-source firmware for a driver that does not exist vs having an open source driver with published firmware.

> Is that a function of Linux Desktop simply being more capable nowadays?

I don't think so - it's more a function of hardware becoming more complicated, and vendors choosing to put a lot of the logic in firmware rather than putting it in ROM because there's a much lower chance of them getting it right first time now than there was in the past.

Re: Debian and firmware

#60
post #14

As a long time Debian user I'm reluctant to criticize developer ergonomics as I'm not an _active_ contributor. That being said, _as a user_, I've not had any issue locating and using non-free firmware when required, and I would be disappointed to see the project change course by including non-free components in an offical manner. Removing the slight inconvenience (literally clicking a link _on the installation page_…

As a long time non-contributing Debian/Ubuntu user (I hop between the two whenever one of them annoys me too much), I've had a lot of issues locating and using non-free firmware when required.

For the longest time (since fixed), trying to use Wi-Fi in debian-installer simply didn't work, regardless whether I used the unofficial image or dumped the firmware debs on disk. Can't complain about that anymore since it's fixed.

Now that Wi-Fi works when available at install-time, let's try to install a bog standard desktop system. Did you run the text installer or the graphical installer? If you used the text installer, you might be surprised to get an unescapable gray screen on an otherwise fully working booted system! Your video out doesn't work properly because kernel modesetting doesn't work without firmware or some mumbo jumbo like that. Your options are:

- Run the graphical installer in the first place so that the GPU firmware is used/installed by the installer

- Run a shell in the text installer and do "apt-install firmware-blah", a command which is only documented in a dusty unstyled html in a file cabinet hidden by a beware of leopard sign copyrighted 2010

- On boot up, use some relatively arcane GRUB magic (I'm just a user, so I have to look it up every time, okay?) to boot into some kind of safe non-graphical mode and install the GPU firmware

(Bonus: the unofficial firmware-included disc image symlinks the firmware debs, so the image only works when you DD it. The most popular Windows disc writing software Rufus recommends writing disc images in ISO mode (file-by-file) so that you can use excess free space. If you're wondering why the firmware directory has a bunch of 0 byte files, that's why, and you need to switch to DD mode.)

Post reply on HN