Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
Why not a restricted-modules package in non-free?
- alleluia20
- Posts: 315
- Joined: 2006-11-21 21:27
Why not a restricted-modules package in non-free?
I think it would be dramatically helpful for newbies.
Imagine that a newbie installs Debian in a Laptop and sees that his/her Atheros wifi card does not work, his/her uvcvideo webcam does not work either...
I do not think it is very likely that s/he is willing to download the source package and use module-assistant. I think s/he will run away from Debian when s/he reads so
I think the discussion about libre software is over: you have the non-free section, and you are free to choose to activate or not activate that.
So, why not include a restricted-modules package in non-free?
Imagine that a newbie installs Debian in a Laptop and sees that his/her Atheros wifi card does not work, his/her uvcvideo webcam does not work either...
I do not think it is very likely that s/he is willing to download the source package and use module-assistant. I think s/he will run away from Debian when s/he reads so
I think the discussion about libre software is over: you have the non-free section, and you are free to choose to activate or not activate that.
So, why not include a restricted-modules package in non-free?
We've been thru this discussion before.
I vote #3.
I've noticed in your posts before that it's important for you that Linux be as much like Windows as possible. You might want to study recent news stories related to Linspire.
I vote #3.
I've noticed in your posts before that it's important for you that Linux be as much like Windows as possible. You might want to study recent news stories related to Linspire.
Debian-Lenny/Sid 32/64
Desktop: Generic Core 2 Duo, EVGA 680i, Nvidia
Laptop: Generic Intel SIS/AC97
Desktop: Generic Core 2 Duo, EVGA 680i, Nvidia
Laptop: Generic Intel SIS/AC97
- alleluia20
- Posts: 315
- Joined: 2006-11-21 21:27
The thing that sucks about a package like this is illustrated by this example:
Laptop has Ubuntu installed, with restricted modules (isn't this by default?)
Laptop is configured to use proprietary fglrx driver for video, but it doesn't work since it's old.
User installs the newer fglrx driver and then video works.
User reboots, finds that the restricted module is back and conflicting with the newer version. User must repeat the setup process to get any graphical interface.
Laptop has Ubuntu installed, with restricted modules (isn't this by default?)
Laptop is configured to use proprietary fglrx driver for video, but it doesn't work since it's old.
User installs the newer fglrx driver and then video works.
User reboots, finds that the restricted module is back and conflicting with the newer version. User must repeat the setup process to get any graphical interface.
- perlhacker14
- Posts: 464
- Joined: 2007-06-19 20:19
- Location: 127.0.0.1
If a newbie is not willing to do some work, they have no place with Debian.
After they STFW, they should be able to get the stuff and install it, as most of it has a manual.
This is not Ubuntu or Windows; this is real Linux.
After they STFW, they should be able to get the stuff and install it, as most of it has a manual.
This is not Ubuntu or Windows; this is real Linux.
Arven bids you a good day...
My Laptop: Toshiba Satellite A25-S3072; 3.06 GHz Pentium 4; 473 MiB RAM; Debian Testing/Unstable/Experimental / Slackware 12; Whatever WM/DE I feel like at the moment
My Laptop: Toshiba Satellite A25-S3072; 3.06 GHz Pentium 4; 473 MiB RAM; Debian Testing/Unstable/Experimental / Slackware 12; Whatever WM/DE I feel like at the moment
I agree and i voted #3 as well...If you want restricted modules and the like, go over to Ubuntu. It's not THAT hard to install the madwifi, nvidia, etc modules manually.perlhacker14 wrote:If a newbie is not willing to do some work, they have no place with Debian.
After they STFW, they should be able to get the stuff and install it, as most of it has a manual.
This is not Ubuntu or Windows; this is real Linux.
IMO, it isn't worth it. Here's a list of things we can do without compromising things too much:
- Automatically install module-assistant and build-essential during system install
Include the kernel headers with the kernel itself
Automagically recompile any kernel modules during a kernel update
I do believe build-essential should be installed by default...I don't install too much from source, but build-essential is the first or second package in install on a new installation of any distro. As for the kernel headers...I thought the kernel-image depended on them or that build-essential depended on them (yes, i know all build-essential is is a metapackage). As for automagically recompiling modules if there's a kernel update...Supposedly soon there's no need for this because of the user-space driver implementation coming in 2.6.23 of the kernel. I don't know too much about it, but i believe it's purpose is that when you update your kernel, you don't have to recompile any of your modules.BioTube wrote:IMO, it isn't worth it. Here's a list of things we can do without compromising things too much:Precompiling kernel modules can cause all sorts of problems.
- Automatically install module-assistant and build-essential during system install
Include the kernel headers with the kernel itself
Automagically recompile any kernel modules during a kernel update
You guys suck, whats wrong with that, Debian is about stability and security not hard-xxx-core.. thats Gentoo.debians to hard-xxx-core for there to be an easier way to install restrictive modules
This is what the non-free repo is for.
Sure this isnt very important but dont criticize people for wanting to make things easier.
That seems to be a problem with an implementation not the idea. This doesn't have to happen. Also, if someone is smart enough to go and install some driver the non debian way they should be able to handle making sure the correct things are loaded.trey wrote: User reboots, finds that the restricted module is back and conflicting with the newer version. User must repeat the setup process to get any graphical interface.
I will say yes because running module-assistant for every new kernel can get annoying. I for one don't mind making something easier if it makes good sense.
Actually, if the driver/ modules/ whatever is free as in no money and you are allowed re-distribute I believe it can go into non-free. Even so, someone will have to make the package...
But very often such things, even if they are freely downloadable from the vendors site, you are not allowed to redistribute it and then it will be impossible for Debian to have it in the repos simply because they would breach the license.
Tina
But very often such things, even if they are freely downloadable from the vendors site, you are not allowed to redistribute it and then it will be impossible for Debian to have it in the repos simply because they would breach the license.
Tina
I really dislike the attitude that Linux and user (or even newbie) friendliness are somehow opposed to each other, especially considering that some of the biggest advances in userfiendliness has come from Debian. If it weren't, we'd all still be compiling from source. Ubuntu is as much real Linux as Debian. Just becuase they are taking additional steps to ease the process for the end user and riding the popularity of that doesn't make it 'less linux'.perlhacker14 wrote:If a newbie is not willing to do some work, they have no place with Debian.
After they STFW, they should be able to get the stuff and install it, as most of it has a manual.
This is not Ubuntu or Windows; this is real Linux.
If it is possible to make things easier for the end user without compromising 'the debian way' of doing things then I see no reason why it shouldn't be done.
Linux user as of Jan 20007. Still getting the hang of it.
While I do not necessarily like the idea of non-free things in general I do have to agree that expecting anyone (new user or old-hand) to build a driver for their wireless card so they can do a netinstall is counter-intuitive. It just doesn't work. If you have wired ethernet and can do the install that way great but that's not always the case nor should it have to be.
This is not the same argument as nv vs. nvidia. Your X server still works w/ the nv driver. Without wireless working you're pretty much screwed.
I have considered building some drivers myself but keeping up with the many kernels would be too much for me to handle with the limited time I have on hand.
This is not the same argument as nv vs. nvidia. Your X server still works w/ the nv driver. Without wireless working you're pretty much screwed.
I have considered building some drivers myself but keeping up with the many kernels would be too much for me to handle with the limited time I have on hand.
Debian Sid Laptops:
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor TK-55 / 1.5G
Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU T2390 @ 1.86GHz / 3G
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor TK-55 / 1.5G
Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU T2390 @ 1.86GHz / 3G
- Velvet Elvis
- Posts: 105
- Joined: 2007-04-09 10:55
I think part of the issue is that ubuntu is willing to stuff that can get them sued because they have gold plated space toilets at Canonical anyway.
Debian, not so much.
Perhaps you should change the poll to:
Should debian expose itself to litigation so that newbies shut up and quit complaining:
a. yes
b. no
Debian, not so much.
Perhaps you should change the poll to:
Should debian expose itself to litigation so that newbies shut up and quit complaining:
a. yes
b. no
First, the phrase in the quote that i bolded = greatest phrase ever.Velvet Elvis wrote:I think part of the issue is that ubuntu is willing to stuff that can get them sued because they have gold plated space toilets at Canonical anyway.
Debian, not so much.
Perhaps you should change the poll to:
Should debian expose itself to litigation so that newbies shut up and quit complaining:
a. yes
b. no
Second, that's a very interesting way of looking at it and i certainly didn't think about that.
What makes you guys think debian should be agains non-free things, debian already has a non-free repo so it should be made use of it.
If somebody actually was making the packages would you flame them, just because it was non-free.
Nobody is asking you to do it, so just move on and do something that you think is important. Dont stop people from doing what they think is important, at the end of the day it has all helped debian.
If somebody actually was making the packages would you flame them, just because it was non-free.
Nobody is asking you to do it, so just move on and do something that you think is important. Dont stop people from doing what they think is important, at the end of the day it has all helped debian.
- Velvet Elvis
- Posts: 105
- Joined: 2007-04-09 10:55
There's a difference between non-free and illegal to distribute.
Some other distros distribute things when they do not have the legal right to do so. To put it in windows terms, it's putting warez on the distro CD. People should call Mint Linux what it is: A warez distro.
That's not just non-free. It's illegal. It places anyone who makes a distribution based on yours at legal risk as well.
Ie, if ubuntu includes GPL licensed kernel blobs for which no source exists, that does not suddenly grant all ubuntu derivatives the legal right distribute them just because it was ubuntu and not the derivative that chose to violate the GPL. It just means that ever single distro based on ubuntu can be sued by whoever owns the copyright.
It's not just about high minded ideals. It's also about following the law so you don't get your ass sued off. Putting out a stable OS also means making sure that nobody can sue you out of existence. Microsoft is already claiming that Linux distros are full of stolen intellectual property when they are not. Doing stuff like stealing intellectual property and putting it in linux distros does not help the linux community defend itself.
If you want to trade in warez, use windows.
Some other distros distribute things when they do not have the legal right to do so. To put it in windows terms, it's putting warez on the distro CD. People should call Mint Linux what it is: A warez distro.
That's not just non-free. It's illegal. It places anyone who makes a distribution based on yours at legal risk as well.
Ie, if ubuntu includes GPL licensed kernel blobs for which no source exists, that does not suddenly grant all ubuntu derivatives the legal right distribute them just because it was ubuntu and not the derivative that chose to violate the GPL. It just means that ever single distro based on ubuntu can be sued by whoever owns the copyright.
It's not just about high minded ideals. It's also about following the law so you don't get your ass sued off. Putting out a stable OS also means making sure that nobody can sue you out of existence. Microsoft is already claiming that Linux distros are full of stolen intellectual property when they are not. Doing stuff like stealing intellectual property and putting it in linux distros does not help the linux community defend itself.
If you want to trade in warez, use windows.