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?

User discussion about Debian Development, Debian Project News and Announcements. Not for support questions.

Should there be a restricted-modules package in non-free?

Yes, it'd be very convenient
16
59%
No, it's not worth
5
19%
Debian is for experts, use Windows or Ubuntu instead!
6
22%
 
Total votes: 27

Message
Author
User avatar
alleluia20
Posts: 315
Joined: 2006-11-21 21:27

Why not a restricted-modules package in non-free?

#1 Post by alleluia20 »

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 :-D

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?

User avatar
rickh
Posts: 3434
Joined: 2006-06-29 02:13
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA

#2 Post by rickh »

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.
Debian-Lenny/Sid 32/64
Desktop: Generic Core 2 Duo, EVGA 680i, Nvidia
Laptop: Generic Intel SIS/AC97

User avatar
alleluia20
Posts: 315
Joined: 2006-11-21 21:27

#3 Post by alleluia20 »

I think it is not the same. With restricted-modules I mean the gratis but not libre: madwifi, uvcvideo, nvidia, etc, etc.

For newbies, it would be extremely useful.

For me, maybe I am lazy, but it is a pain in the neck to run module-assistant every time I update the kernel.

trey
Posts: 119
Joined: 2005-06-09 17:47

#4 Post by trey »

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.

User avatar
perlhacker14
Posts: 464
Joined: 2007-06-19 20:19
Location: 127.0.0.1

#5 Post by perlhacker14 »

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.
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

jdhore
Posts: 245
Joined: 2007-06-03 17:22

#6 Post by jdhore »

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.
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.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 7520
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

#7 Post by BioTube »

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
Precompiling kernel modules can cause all sorts of problems.
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.

jdhore
Posts: 245
Joined: 2007-06-03 17:22

#8 Post by jdhore »

BioTube wrote: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
Precompiling kernel modules can cause all sorts of problems.
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.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 7520
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

#9 Post by BioTube »

Not having to recompile would be nice, but I'm sure that there might be some cases where it's necessary(the kernel occasionally renames something). And build-essential doesn't bring in the headers since these change between versions and not everybody has the latest kernel.
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.

User avatar
sinical
Posts: 1012
Joined: 2007-03-25 11:52

#10 Post by sinical »

yes
Every cloud has a silver lining, except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Strontium 90.
---------------------------------------------
umop apisdn

User avatar
Dargor
Posts: 653
Joined: 2006-08-14 08:54
Location: New Zealand, Hamilton

#11 Post by Dargor »

debians to hard-xxx-core for there to be an easier way to install restrictive modules
You guys suck, whats wrong with that, Debian is about stability and security not hard-xxx-core.. thats Gentoo.

This is what the non-free repo is for.

Sure this isnt very important but dont criticize people for wanting to make things easier.

User avatar
Vergil
Posts: 179
Joined: 2007-04-22 04:54
Location: Tennessee, US

#12 Post by Vergil »

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.
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.

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.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 7520
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

#13 Post by BioTube »

Wouldn't it be easier for the module sources to depend on build-essential and your kernel's headers and for the packages to automatically run module-assistant?
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.

Lavene
Site admin
Site admin
Posts: 4958
Joined: 2006-01-04 04:26
Location: Oslo, Norway

#14 Post by Lavene »

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

User avatar
b9anders
Posts: 88
Joined: 2007-06-19 18:01
Contact:

#15 Post by b9anders »

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.
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'.

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.

User avatar
mzilikazi
Forum Account
Forum Account
Posts: 3282
Joined: 2004-09-16 02:14
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

#16 Post by mzilikazi »

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.
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

User avatar
Velvet Elvis
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-04-09 10:55

#17 Post by Velvet Elvis »

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

jdhore
Posts: 245
Joined: 2007-06-03 17:22

#18 Post by jdhore »

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
First, the phrase in the quote that i bolded = greatest phrase ever.
Second, that's a very interesting way of looking at it and i certainly didn't think about that.

User avatar
Dargor
Posts: 653
Joined: 2006-08-14 08:54
Location: New Zealand, Hamilton

#19 Post by Dargor »

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.

User avatar
Velvet Elvis
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-04-09 10:55

#20 Post by Velvet Elvis »

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.

Post Reply