Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Debian and firmware

blog.einval.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 180 posts

Re: Debian and firmware

#111

Post by anthk »

tremon wrote: post #108
mschuster91 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the trouble for networking chipsets, but not for the video card - all x86 systems should be able to fall back to ye goode olde days of at least a text console using the old BIOS interface. A default setup of any Linux distribution should in my opinion at least automatically detect if there is something lacking for a framebuffer console or a GUI, and fall back to a plain console.

This isn't what the radeon driver does for AMD gpu's, and hasn't for years: loading the driver automatically enables the full rendering engine and disables the VESA modes, even if no firmware has been loaded. Which means that on a normal system with radeon.ko present but not the firmware files, you get a few seconds of kernel output followed by a black screen. For the systems where I don't want the firmware (servers)…

The Radeon module works on non-accelerated mode with the modesetting driver instead of the xorg Radeon one.

At /usr/share/X11/xorg.conf.d/10-radeon.conf:

     Section "Device"
 identifier "Radeon"
 Driver "modesetting"
    EndSection
Bugs may arise, maybe it could be a good idea to disable the Composite extension too.

Re: Debian and firmware

#112

Post by scbrg »

jabl wrote: post #104
denton-scratch wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Debian needs "converts". This isn't a religious revival movement. There are many Debian derivatives that aren't as arsey as Debian about non-free blobs; if that's what people want, then they should "convert" to one of those derivatives, rather than raw Debian.

One could just as well claim that if Debian decides to include non-free firmware on the official install images, those that are deeply offended about that can sod off and create some derivative distro with the dirty bits removed. It's not written in stone that Debian has to be the purest distro of them all.

> It's not written in stone that Debian has to be the purest distro of them all.

Perhaps not purest, and perhaps not in stone, but in the closest thing to a digital equivalent it's at least written that Debian has to be pure.

The very first bullet of Debian's Social contract is: "Debian will remain 100% free". You could argue that when that changes, it stops being Debian.

https://www.debian.org/social_contract

Re: Debian and firmware

#113

Post by anthk »

mastax wrote: post #3
cube00 wrote: post #2

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. In my personal case nVidia stopped supporting my graphics card and eventually their binary blob stopped working with the newer…

AMD and Intel GPUs also have closed source firmware.

I have an Intel NUC based iGPU and it works with Linux-Libre + MESA. OpenGL and Vulkan. Ok, just libre games/engines, but they with all the FX'.

Re: Debian and firmware

#114

Post by eptcyka »

stragies wrote: post #98
mschuster91 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the trouble for networking chipsets, but not for the video card - all x86 systems should be able to fall back to ye goode olde days of at least a text console using the old BIOS interface. A default setup of any Linux distribution should in my opinion at least automatically detect if there is something lacking for a framebuffer console or a GUI, and fall back to a plain console.

Because of the very common issue with network card firmware (wired&wireless) I have taken to always providing initial network access during install through me hooking up my phone via USB-tethering. No Firmware needed. Then select "expert mode", enable "non-free" repo, maybe "backports", go through base install only, reboot, re-enable USB-tethering a last time on the phone, install needed network card firmware, reboot…

This is such a solvable issue it deeply disturbs me you need to dance this dance. Whilst you might not be complaining about it, this is exactly the kind of stuff that deters people from using more FOSS. Not only are selecting non-default options every time you install a debian system, you've also spent the time to learn this ritual and you've had to comprehend the complexities of what, how and why to do this. Just to install an OS. I understand the FOSS advocacy angle, but this is impractically stupid. You're not the only one who has learned to deal with this, so I'd wager there's months if not years of waking hours lost to what could easily be automated away.

Re: Debian and firmware

#115

Post by yakubin »

Gigachad wrote: post #43
zrm wrote: 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…

I use Debian on desktop, because it's the most problem-free distro I've used. Once something works, it usually stays this way with no effort on my part. Ubuntu was the opposite for me, which is weird given how it's a Debian derivative.

I don't care about FOSS, so the principles are not a motivation for me.

Re: Debian and firmware

#116

Post by yrro »

rincebrain wrote: post #68
zrm wrote: 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.

I think the question becomes, are people using Debian in large part because of those principles, or in spite of the inconveniences that come with them because of other benefits (e.g. it's a fairly well-maintained, stable Linux distribution, that very aggressively believes if something worked on 11.0 it better still work on 11.9)? If we look at popcon[1], it currently says 11.84% of users who opted into popcon regular…

I wish it were possible to view those installation counts as a percentage of systems which are non-virtual!

Re: Debian and firmware

#117

Post by the_biot »

It's a shame that there's barely even a conversation about fixing the problem of the ever growing pile of proprietary firmware blobs; more and more often people seem to just accept the situation.

There isn't AFAIK an organisation or project dedicated to producing free firmware to replace the blobs. The most you see is the occasional project for making firmware for a single chip. Debian's page lists these: https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware/Open It's a depressingly short list.

I guess the problem is in part that there's no money to fund anyone for doing such (very hard) work, and no incentive for companies to pay for it.

Re: Debian and firmware

#118

Post by ajot »

rincebrain wrote: post #68
zrm wrote: 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.

I think the question becomes, are people using Debian in large part because of those principles, or in spite of the inconveniences that come with them because of other benefits (e.g. it's a fairly well-maintained, stable Linux distribution, that very aggressively believes if something worked on 11.0 it better still work on 11.9)? If we look at popcon[1], it currently says 11.84% of users who opted into popcon regular…

I'm a Debian desktop user for both principles and stability. I try to use free software only, but I use the non-free ISO when installing onto a new machine, because I need it to work in the first place.

The Web has plenty of tutorials explaining the installation process and the difference between the official ISO and the non-free ISO, even though I would love a better Debian Wiki.

Maybe it's a bit of gatekeeping, but popularity by itself shouldn't be the goal for Debian. You don't know how to install Debian, you don't want to search for a tutorial first, you won't let someone more knowledgeable to help you? Well, I believe this is not the best place for you, you'll face worse things on the road if you keep using Linux.

Re: Debian and firmware

#119

Post by cesarb »

denton-scratch wrote: post #97
throwaway48375 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want non-free software. I don't find other distros nicer to use. I chose a distribution whose values aligned with mine. I have switched before and will, admittedly reluctantly, change again to find one whose principals align with mine. I find Debian, as it exists now, the correct balance of ease of use while still respecting my ideals.

I line-up with Debian's principled stand against non-free blobs. Having said that, my reason for preferring firmware freedom mainly isn't principle; it's that non-free firmware potentially deprives me of control of my own equipment. By turning it's nose up at non-free firmware, Debian increases incentives for people to buy equipment that depends less on these blobs. That in turn incentivises manufacturers to offer eq…

> By turning it's nose up at non-free firmware, Debian increases incentives for people to buy equipment that depends less on these blobs. That in turn incentivises manufacturers to offer equipment that doesn't depend on blobbiness.

Actually, it only incentives people to buy and manufacturers to offer equipment which has the exact same blobs on a NAND chip on the equipment itself. It's more convenient, sure, since there's no need to find a copy of (the correct version of) the blob and load it together with the driver, but it still depends on these blobs.

Re: Debian and firmware

#120

Post by bayindirh »

fxtentacle wrote: post #76
b5n wrote: 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_…

I believe there should be an official non-free repository (akin to Ubuntu's) which users can enable offline, meaning it needs to be stored on the official CD. Enabling it should display a big scary warning about handing over partial control of your machine to greedy faceless megacorps who will throw you under the bus in a heartbeat if that makes them money. Maybe add an illustration of a robot terminator, to really d…

> I believe there should be an official non-free repository (akin to Ubuntu's) which users can enable offline, meaning it needs to be stored on the official CD.

There's already a "non-free" section under official "dists" ([0] for stable). It's just not added to the ISOs. Netinstall directly asks that whether you want non-free enabled during installation too.

The only thing is whether building CDs with it or not. Actually there are Zip files containing all firmware for a release, which can be added to a USB drive and added during install, but it's not well documented.

Maybe, this Zip files can be made more prominent, and using them can be better documented. Yes, it's not including firmware in the CD, but it's a good compromise.

What about a nice tool (akin to GRML2USB) which writes the ISO to USB and leaves a mountable FAT32 partition where user can drop in the firmware.zip file, so it becomes self contained if user wants?

[0]: http://ftp.tr.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/non-free/

Post reply on HN