Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   LWN.net (lwn@fosstodon.org)'s status on Monday, 03-Oct-2022 13:35:59 JST LWN.net

   Debian's firmware vote results https://lwn.net/Articles/910065/ #LWN

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 03-Oct-2022 13:35:57 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • tulpa
     @tulpa Including proprietary malware by default, thus forcing the users to agree to the proprietary software licenses on the firmware on installer download is pragmatic?
   • Embed this notice
     tulpa (tulpa@fosstodon.org)'s status on Monday, 03-Oct-2022 13:35:58 JST tulpa

     in reply to

     @LWN Debian made the pragmatic choice. I approve.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 03-Oct-2022 18:57:48 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Julian Andres Klode 🏳️‍🌈
     @juliank Hold on a minute, I would have thought they're at least be a non-proprietary installer offered if you wanted it, but you're saying that only a proprietary installer will be offered?
     Absolutely disgusting.
     Sure I could probably make a non-proprietary version for release, but there's probably not much point, as is looks like Debian is going to become successively more and more proprietary.
   • Embed this notice
     Julian Andres Klode 🏳️‍🌈 (juliank@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 03-Oct-2022 18:57:55 JST Julian Andres Klode 🏳️‍🌈

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • tulpa

     @Suiseiseki feel free to help building non-firmware images. This was just a matter of not forcing the image building team to build two images. @tulpa

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 03-Oct-2022 19:45:44 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Julian Andres Klode 🏳️‍🌈
     @juliank It's unfair to request (where did the forcing part come from) that the compiler team provides an image free of malware just as what occurred before (should be all automated already, so no changes should really be required, rather the recent decision would be the thing forcing the compiler team to make changes)?
     Why would they need to test the other installer, when the only difference is a few directories full of files and a repo config?
     
     I would say leading people astray with proprietary malware is the real unfairness that's occurring here.
   • Embed this notice
     Julian Andres Klode 🏳️‍🌈 (juliank@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 03-Oct-2022 19:45:45 JST Julian Andres Klode 🏳️‍🌈

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki There might be, but the point is that forcing the team building the installers to build two (and people to test two installers) would be unfair to them.