Web lists-archives.com

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)




On 12/01/2017 05:31 PM, Alf Gaida wrote:
> On 01.12.2017 16:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)"):
>>> I find it interesting that we're having this conversation at the same
>>> time as a thread about how there should be a configuration option that
>>> denies our users the opportunity to choose to install non-free software.
>> Perhaps you mean: a configuration option that allows a user not to be
>> nagged to install non-free software.
>>
>> FAOD I agree that the current situation with install images for random
>> PCs is quite unsatisfactory, but I don't know how to square the circle.
>>
>> Ian.
>>
> Ian, thats dead easy - put the needed packages onto the iso and be done
> with. The installer should have an option to opt-in contrib and/or
> non-free. Done. Ok, that was the technical part. The other part of the
> story would be that the FSF wouldn't like us for that step.

The FSF wouldn't be the only one. I at least, and probably a lot of
Debian contributors, would start hating Debian for promoting hardware
that needs non-free drivers if the non-free ISO was the default one. If
this drives some of our users away, never mind, we're doing free
software, that's what Debian is about.

> and some other people who think
> that every debian user need to be educated that one has to buy hardware
> that would work without non-free things.

Yes, I do believe it's important to educate people to free software.

> The majority of the users would be happy.

Happy, but using non-free software. This isn't what Debian is about.
I've signed-up on the social-contract, and I stand by it.

> What do we weight more: Happy users or free software?

Free software, definitively. If users aren't happy, it's not our fault,
but the one of hardware makers that are promoting non-free software.
Instead trying to convince Debian people, it'd be better if you spent
your energy trying to convince hardware makers.

> The FSF has answered this before - Debian is not
> free, so they don't recommend us.

Honestly, and with all due respect, I don't care the FSF view. It just
happens to be the same as mine, which is good. But what the FSF view is,
isn't what motivates me. It's what the Debian view is. That's what
counts when contributing to Debian, not the view of a 3rd party
organization, even if it deserves a lot of respect, like the FSF.

> Their choice. We choose to promote and
> deliver iso's without any non-free. Our choice. And for the people with
> the needed knowledge there are iso's that will work well with nearly all
> hardware. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

Instead of flaming the FSF, you should probably advocate for having the
non-free ISO promoted a little bit more. Please leave the FSF alone,
it's a very nice organization, and they do super nice work. We aren't
working against each others.

> Debian
> will be limited to users who prefer free software or have the knowledge
> to work around these limitations. Or are able to find the working isos
> with non-free.

It's probably that last bit that needs to be fixed. In my view, it'd be
fine to promote this ISO a little bit more, as long as we write in BOLD
that this contains non-free drivers, and how bad hardware makers are.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)