Re: ISO download difficult
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:44:57 +0100
- From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: ISO download difficult
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:50:59PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:57:11PM +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> > I vote for:
> > 1- putting the non-free firmware on all our images,
> > 2- let the installer check whether they are needed,
> > 3- if yes, let the user decide:
> I agree with this. While I also believe non-free firmware should not be
> encouraged, our current behaviour of making non-free installers
> available but difficult to find is just annoying users.
What about offering them side to side? It looks like a non-negligible part
of posters in this thread want the purely free version -- and, indeed they
represent the Social Contract and the original purpose of Debian and Free
Software in general.
I'd also put a _succint_ description of what's wrong with them. Written in
a way that avoids philosophical distinctions which are opaque to those who
don't already know about the matter -- but emotional imprecise words are
> If the user's system works fine without the non-free firmware, was any
> harm done by having it part of the installer? Especially if nothing of
> it was installed?
To a fully rational person who wants a purely free system -- no harm, as
the increased download size is such a small portion that shaving it is not
worth the extra user confusion. But, offering only a non-free version would
be a big step in a direction many of us do not want. And, there's hope that
in ten years x86 might lose its dominance, in which case we'd rue falling
into this slippery slope.
Thus: I'd say we should prominently offer two downloads, one with a
paragraph of insults.
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 14:13 < icenowy[m]> are they hot enough? ;-)
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ 14:17 < icenowy[m]> I think now in Europe it should be winter? Let
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ the BPi warm you ;-)
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ 14:17 <@KotCzarny> yeah, i have a pc to warm me ;)