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

91–100 of 180 posts

Re: Debian and firmware

#91

Post by mschuster91 »

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 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.

Re: Debian and firmware

#92

Post by mjg59 »

hypothesis wrote: post #89
mjg59 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is hardware becoming more complicated without being more capable? I don't think so. Every component on my system that runs firmware is significantly more complicated than the iterations that didn't. 802.11ax is much harder than 802.11b, for instance. > But to an end-user, is there a difference between having a blob in ROM vs firmware, if both are closed source? Yeah, bugs that are discovered after release can be fi…

> Yeah, bugs that are discovered after release can be fixed. I definitely understand that real benefit. But I was questioning the premise that having blob in ROM is somehow better than needing same blob in firmware, simply because that one doesn’t need/want to distribute non-free firmware on media. If one wanted libre hardware, then both cases are not great.

> But I was questioning the premise that having blob in ROM is somehow better than needing same blob in firmware, simply because that one doesn’t need/want to distribute non-free firmware on media.

Oh right! I absolutely believe that having non-free firmware on media is preferable - in some cases this has led to free implementations that replace the non-free firmware, and even outside that, given the choice between non-free code that doesn't work and non-free code that does, I'd prefer to take the latter.

Re: Debian and firmware

#93

Post by Nextgrid »

mschuster91 wrote: post #91
fxtentacle wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

In some cases there might be bugs there.

Back in my early Linux days I had an issue where the default Ubuntu/Debian installer would come up with a garbled display and I'd have to use `vga=...` or `nomodeset` (or similar, can't remember) to get a proper console going. Once installed I would install a package and it would "just work".

A way to directly boot into an environment with non-free firmware available could help and the user doesn't lose any more freedom if they're already determined to use non-free firmware post-install anyway.

Re: Debian and firmware

#94

Post by julian-klode »

mschuster91 wrote: post #91
fxtentacle wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

They even should all be supporting efifb?

Re: Debian and firmware

#95

Post by maratc »

jcelerier wrote: post #66
Gigachad wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The engineering school I went to used Debian on every desktop

Was it because of the principals of your school?

Re: Debian and firmware

#97

Post by denton-scratch »

throwaway48375 wrote: post #83
Gigachad wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could be seen as a benefit and a downside. It’s basically suggesting that you find other distros nicer to use but chose to use the less nice one due to principals. Most users will pick the nicer to use one.

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 equipment that doesn't depend on blobbiness.

I realise that these incentives are strictly at the margin; but Debian is the only leading distro that takes a hard line on these matters. If Debian were to retire from the battlefield, nobody would be left standing except the closed-firmware hardware makers. That would make me sad.

Re: Debian and firmware

#98

Post by stragies »

mschuster91 wrote: post #91
fxtentacle wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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, disconnect phone, run "tasksel", select whatever you want to install to finish install.

Having done this "detour" for many years now, it's "automatic" for me, and takes barely 3 minutes longer than the "normal" install from the IsoWithNonFree. I usually want "backports" enabled, so going into "expert mode" is required anyway.

Re: Debian and firmware

#99

Post by denton-scratch »

bruce511 wrote: post #86
jabl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 us…

The purpose is to provide free software _for those who want it_. If the goal is to create converts then a puritanical approach is a poor approach, IMO. Personally I've never seen the FSF approach as being "conversional" - rather it acts as a purity touchstone. Debian needs to articulate its specific goals to the author, there are many paths they can take, but unless the goals are clearly articulated its hard to see w…

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.

Re: Debian and firmware

#100

Post by lmm »

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'd expect opting into popcon and not caring about freeness to be highly correlated.
Post reply on HN