What should Debian do about firmware?

[darkphoenix939]

why not make the changes in the usual debian way i have seen big changes go threw ... experimental > unstable > testing > and next the stable after this one. but to be delayed 6 + months extra when the next stable is almost ready and have betas out for it? i say wait until the next release and put the changes threw the usual debian way but making sure the changes are ready before the next stable after this one. either way for most it should not matter right? 70 somthing % of us use sid? but still let it be ready for the next release after this one.

[ajdlinux]

either way for most it should not matter right? 70 somthing % of us use sid?

Maybe 70% of desktop users. Certainly not 70% of Debian users - probably around 70% of all Debian installations are servers, and 95% of those run stable.

[Jeroen]

Maybe 70% of desktop users. Certainly not 70% of Debian users - probably around 70% of all Debian installations are servers, and 95% of those run stable.

Do you have any creadible reference for these statistics? By using percentages you suggest knowing it by some kind of certainty, but I've never seen numbers like this.

[ajdlinux]

No, they're just out of thin air; but I suspect that's rather close to the actual number - Debian is very popular as a server distro: according to NetCraft it has over 1.2 million active websites as of Dec 2005 - and I wouldn't really think most of those 1.2m would run Etch or Sid.

[mnorwick]

I'm somewhat purist so voting to delay seems like a logical choice. Putting proprietary, closed-source firmware in main breaks the philosophy of having main, contrib, and non-free. Considering the problems I just had trying to install Etch from 'testing' it is not ready for prime time anyway.

Michael

[WK1]

I'm going to let Lavene continue to say what I would have said.

Although I do have one original reply.

Woody, Sarge, current testing/etch, and sid all contain sourceless firmware at the moment. The question is not about adding it, but about whether or not removing it. The linux kernel has for a very very long time contained firmware of even mostly unknown origin.

REALLY!?? How is that not a severe violation of debian policy? Non-free is non-free. Whether it is software, drivers, kernel, or firmware.

And, since everyone else is ending with popular catch phrases about selling your beliefs for external results, here is one I made up. I frequently use it to make decisions in my life.

"If you sell your soul for the whole world, what do you have left?" --Winter Knight

[ajdlinux]

WK1, it is a known issue, but the original goal for Sarge was to remove it all, then that slipped to Etch, and now we're going to delay it again...

[chealer]

I didn't vote, as the choices look bogus. It's missing an "Other" choice.

Which other option do you see?

In 2 words, status quo: don't allow sourceless firmware in main, don't drop support for hardware which requires sourceless firmware, but don't delay the release of etch by removing sourceless firmware already in linux-2.6.