Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Ok if I can also give my opinion on this.

I think the distinction should remain as it is.

However the installer would be more practical if it gives the option to 
enable non-free and contrib repositories during installation and not 
after so that people can get a complete system without having to do it 
manually later on after installation.

So I can see that in many cases the installer detects the need for 
non-free firmware, so why not give the option to the user to enable the 
source for such  firmware right away and install it?

However I vote for Debian images to remain pure without non-free 
firmware, users can always choose to download the non-official images 
with non-free firmware.

One problem though is that even the net install cd image with non-free 
firmware does not enable non-free sources during installation. If people 
had such a cd image which would enable and install when needed or 
desires such firmware it would be great.

Oh  and Debian has always had the best approach, the most ethical and 
the most practical when it comes to free software and non-free software. 
I do not want this to change, but let it be made easier for people to 
install such firmware during installation without the hassles of 
plugging usb-s etc which in my case it did not work.

Best, Ervin

On 9/2/22 11:28, Rick Thomas wrote:
> I'm not in the group that's allowed to vote on this, but I do feel compelled to comment, non-the-less.
>
> I respect (and approve of) the fact that Debian makes a distinction between "free" and "non-free" software, and encourages people to -- when possible -- use only free software.  I think it's a shame for manufacturers to not make source code freely available of the drivers for their hardware.  But sadly I can't change that.
>
> So if I were king, I'd advocate for Debian to continue the distinction between "free" and "non-free" software.  If you want to use less emotionally loaded terms, feel free to advocate for yourself.  But I'm with Juliet: "What's in a name?  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
>
> However, again if I were king, I'd like to see the "unofficial" installers better advertised than they are now.  If you want to drop the "unofficial" designation, I refer you to Juliet again.  Burying it at the bottom of the page in teeny-tiny print doesn't help new users with proprietary wi-fi hardware and no ethernet.  Move the text from the bottom of the page to where it's visible as an equally valid option to the other installation choices.
>
> Hope it helps!
> Rick
>
> PS:  I use the "official" installers when I can, and only switch to the "unofficial" installers when I have to.  However, I usually enable the "contrib non-free" options in sources.list after installation.  If that helps to see where I'm coming from.
>