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

 

 

 

General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!

General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware.

Poll ended at 2022-10-01 16:01

Only one installer, including non-free firmware
5
14%
Recommend installer containing non-free firmware
1
3%
Allow presenting non-free installers alongside the free one
22
63%
Installer with non-free software is not part of Debian
3
9%
Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer
4
11%
Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, keep both installers
0
No votes
None Of The Above
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 35

Message
Author
User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
Posts: 14114
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: London, England
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 132 times

General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#1 Post by Head_on_a_Stick »

Now that the Debian resolution on non-free firmware is under way I thought it would be interesting to gauge the opinions of the community here.

These boards don't seem to support Debian's favoured Condorcet voting system, which is a relief, so just a single vote per user.

Here's the official message about the vote for reference:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/20 ... 00196.html

EDIT: I voted for choice 3 (allow presenting non-free installers alongside the free one).
deadbang

kedaha
Posts: 3521
Joined: 2008-05-24 12:26
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 77 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#2 Post by kedaha »

So I voted for choice 4 (Installer with non-free software is not part of Debian).
DebianStable

Code: Select all

$ vrms

No non-free or contrib packages installed on debian!  rms would be proud.

User avatar
cds60601
df -h | participant
df -h | participant
Posts: 706
Joined: 2017-11-25 05:58
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 129 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#3 Post by cds60601 »

If Debian is going to support the non-free bits, I would prefer a separate download and nothing more (as it is now) but, have it readily accessible opposed to buried and labeled as not supported.
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Fossy
df -h | participant
df -h | participant
Posts: 338
Joined: 2021-08-06 12:45
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#4 Post by Fossy »

I remember that when I switched to Debian , then Buster , I had encountered some difficulties in installing it .
Fortunately I found , took some searching on the site , the live ISO 's with non-free firmware ... labeled as " unofficial " ...
Personally I also find the label " unofficial " an unfortunate choice of words ... then came across a bit strange , where am I adventuring into now ? … it wasn’t , on the contrary , my installation problems were gone immediately .
From whence my choice of option 2 :
" Images that do include non-free firmware will be presented more prominently, so that newcomers will find them more easily "
Last edited by Fossy on 2022-09-19 17:41, edited 2 times in total.
ASUS GL753VD / X550LD / K54HR / X751LAB ( x2 )
Bookworm12.5_Cinnamon / Calamares Single Boot installations
Firefox ESR / DuckDuckGo / Thunderbird / LibreOffice / GIMP / eID Software

https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/cu ... so-hybrid/

User avatar
canci
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2502
Joined: 2006-09-24 11:28
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 136 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#5 Post by canci »

Make the ISOs easier to find and don't call them unofficial. Debian already includes a separate non-free and contrib section, so displaying the non-free images more prominently and telling people that the likelihood is very high that their hardware will need it, can't be that much of a moral conundrum.
Image Stable / Asus VivoBook X421DA / AMD Ryzen 7 3700U / Radeon Vega Mobile Gfx (Picasso) / 8 GB RAM / 512GB NVMe

READ THIS:

* How to Post a Thread Here
* Other Tips and Great Resources

User avatar
sunrat
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6412
Joined: 2006-08-29 09:12
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#6 Post by sunrat »

To me, choice 3 seems the only logical one. Then there is an option to provide a DFSG-compliant version as is current, but pragmatically make it obvious that firmware is required for most recent systems and make the non-free installer equally prominent and available.
Relief of our continued frustration with the massive duplication of posts with issues regarding firmware would be most welcome. A quick calculation using statistics retrieved from my backside would suggest these account for maybe a quarter of help requests.
“ computer users can be divided into 2 categories:
Those who have lost data
...and those who have not lost data YET ”
Remember to BACKUP!

User avatar
Hallvor
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2029
Joined: 2009-04-16 18:35
Location: Kristiansand, Norway
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#7 Post by Hallvor »

I voted 4 for ideological reasons.

Frankly, I don't think anyone should feel guilty of not responding to help threads with massive amounts of duplicates. Most of the options above seem tailored to the crowd that can't even be bothered to do a single forum or web search to resolve their own issues.

Offering a practical solution for this forum:

* make a sticky thread on how to install the most common non-free firmware
* make it more clear to every registering user that they must try to solve their own problems before asking for help
* lock all threads where it is obvious that the user is too lazy to read or make an effort
[HowTo] Install and configure Debian bookworm
Debian 12 | KDE Plasma | ThinkPad T440s | 4 × Intel® Core™ i7-4600U CPU @ 2.10GHz | 12 GiB RAM | Mesa Intel® HD Graphics 4400 | 1 TB SSD

User avatar
Diesel330
Posts: 127
Joined: 2021-11-08 19:57
Location: Eastern Europe
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#8 Post by Diesel330 »

If you are new and you try to install Debian and -as usually happens- you need the non free installer, it is hard to figure it out as it is right now. I believe that many people give up Debian believing that the installer doesn't work.

I voted for ''Allow presenting non-free installers alongside the free one''

User avatar
ticojohn
Posts: 1284
Joined: 2009-08-29 18:10
Location: Costa Rica
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#9 Post by ticojohn »

Although I've not had problems with too new of hardware, I believe that presenting non-free installers along with the free installer is the best option (I voted for that option). I think I understand the desire, by many, to keep Debian free as this adheres to original philosophy of Debian. However, in a world of rapidly advancing hardware it almost becomes imperative for Debian to provide non-free support if it wants to retain a significant client base. Just my opinion of course.
I am not irrational, I'm just quantum probabilistic.

kedaha
Posts: 3521
Joined: 2008-05-24 12:26
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 77 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#10 Post by kedaha »

If the resolution is favorable to non-free firmware, installing a Debian desktop environment will likely become like installing Linux Mint Debian Edition? I'm sure this will please most new users but, in my opinion, it seems contrary to the Debian philosophy and the thin edge of the wedge but—who knows?— to quote a recent forum topic, maybe:
It's time for us to concede defeat.
:(
DebianStable

Code: Select all

$ vrms

No non-free or contrib packages installed on debian!  rms would be proud.

User avatar
sunrat
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6412
Joined: 2006-08-29 09:12
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#11 Post by sunrat »

@kedaha There's no way this resolution will result in removing the availability of the DFSG-compliant installer. I predict proposition A will get zero votes in the resolution.
I look forward to a vast diminution of posts regarding "x hardware doesn't work after installing Debian".
“ computer users can be divided into 2 categories:
Those who have lost data
...and those who have not lost data YET ”
Remember to BACKUP!

kedaha
Posts: 3521
Joined: 2008-05-24 12:26
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 77 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#12 Post by kedaha »

sunrat wrote: 2022-09-19 22:09I look forward to a vast diminution of posts regarding "x hardware doesn't work after installing Debian".
So non-free firmware may be enabled automatically, without user intervention as in, for example, Linux Mint Debian Edition (LMDE); all very pragmatic and "user-friendly" no doubt.
Whereas enabling non-free firmware is a trivial matter for seasoned users, it could pose a major hurdle for beginners coming from distros like Ubuntu but one which had already been lessened considerably, at least for users with an ethernet connection, by isenkram, available from main and help available here. So I reckon Debian has already gone far enough in bending over backwards.
Looking back to my first steps, longer ago than I care to remember :wink: , thanks to the "non-free firmware hurdle" I learned the useful skill of editing configuration files, starting with /etc/apt/sources.list and /etc/apt/sources.list.d. And I remember spending countless hours editing /etc/X11/xorg.conf to enable nVidia options—a task seldom necessary nowadays. I also began to reflect on Debian's position regarding non-free and contrib software and firmware, i.e.,binary blobs, which may—who knows?—introduce security vulnerabilities. While this may be of little or no interest to, for example, a desktop user intent on using, along with, say, a nVidia card, stuff like wine, steam and the latest snaps, Debian's traditional stance has, at least in my experience, been both useful and didactic. So while the vast diminution of posts regarding "x hardware doesn't work after installing Debian" may be welcomed by the cognoscenti, nothing may be learned by new users beyond one or two mouse-clicks. I rest my case.
Last edited by kedaha on 2022-09-20 13:41, edited 1 time in total.
DebianStable

Code: Select all

$ vrms

No non-free or contrib packages installed on debian!  rms would be proud.

User avatar
Hallvor
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2029
Joined: 2009-04-16 18:35
Location: Kristiansand, Norway
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#13 Post by Hallvor »

kedaha wrote: 2022-09-20 11:25 i.e.,binary blobs, which may—who knows?—introduce security vulnerabilities.
Indeed. Introducing code that you can't read or fix in an official image - I don't think that's a great idea.
[HowTo] Install and configure Debian bookworm
Debian 12 | KDE Plasma | ThinkPad T440s | 4 × Intel® Core™ i7-4600U CPU @ 2.10GHz | 12 GiB RAM | Mesa Intel® HD Graphics 4400 | 1 TB SSD

User avatar
wizard10000
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 557
Joined: 2019-04-16 23:15
Location: southeastern us
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#14 Post by wizard10000 »

I prefer amending the social contract and providing a single set of install images but I don't figure there's any way that will fly :)

I get that Debian needs to stick to its roots; I think maintaining multiple sets of install images is probably not the most efficient use of developer resources. I think Debian can still stay true to its stated purpose by using a single installer and allowing users to opt-in or -out of non-free.

Like I said, it ain't gonna happen but that's my preferred option :)
we see things not as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin

User avatar
canci
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2502
Joined: 2006-09-24 11:28
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 136 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#15 Post by canci »

Not burying the non-free images deep within an unintuitive link hell would probably be enough for most people :)
I.e. put the direct link on the main website.
Image Stable / Asus VivoBook X421DA / AMD Ryzen 7 3700U / Radeon Vega Mobile Gfx (Picasso) / 8 GB RAM / 512GB NVMe

READ THIS:

* How to Post a Thread Here
* Other Tips and Great Resources

cynwulf

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#16 Post by cynwulf »

It's important to note that the binary firmware images included in the Linux kernel source, are not native code, in that they are not Linux (or Windows) binaries. They are binary code designed to run on various micro-controllers or SoCs. If these were not loaded by the OS when the device starts, then they would be pre-loaded to the device's EPROM anyway (in fact the whole purpose of these loadable firmware images is just to cut costs and make firmware updates analogous to driver updates).

Keeping proprietary firmware off the installation media is an ideological decision, which may have made some sense in the 90s and 00s, when there would have been far less of these.

I can see the rationale in treating these differently to say, the Nvidia proprietary UNIX driver. This is a set of Linux binaries (including a kernel module), which is native code - the firmware is not.

In my humble view it should work as follows:

1) Single installation image, containing all Linux kernel firmware in udeb files.
2) During installation, the firmware for just the hardware that requires it, is fetched and installed into the target system. User given the option as to whether they want to fetch the firmware for the device(s) or not. Warned that the device(s) will not function otherwise.

With this approach - while the installer has the "offending" firmware, it is never installed in the user's system unless they specifically request it.

User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
Posts: 14114
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: London, England
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#17 Post by Head_on_a_Stick »

Does anybody know if microcode is included in the "non-free firmware" discussion? I can't find any mention in the lists but without the µcode fixes many processors are either vulnerable (eg, to Spectre/Meltdown) or just plain unstable (as is the case for Intel Haswell & early generation Ryzen processors).

The testing/unstable repositories already have a new non-free-firmware component, which is separate from the non-free section. See the InRelease files (the "Components" line). So the firmware can be enabled for updates without having non-free as well. Nice.
deadbang

User avatar
sunrat
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6412
Joined: 2006-08-29 09:12
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#18 Post by sunrat »

Head_on_a_Stick wrote: 2022-09-20 17:01 Does anybody know if microcode is included in the "non-free firmware" discussion?
amd64-microcode, intel-microcode, and iucode-tool are included in the current unofficial non-free images. I doubt that changing that would be a consideration for the resolution.
Package list - https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unof ... -1.list.gz
“ computer users can be divided into 2 categories:
Those who have lost data
...and those who have not lost data YET ”
Remember to BACKUP!

LE_746F6D617A7A69
Posts: 932
Joined: 2020-05-03 14:16
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#19 Post by LE_746F6D617A7A69 »

Voted pos 3: "Allow presenting non-free installers alongside the free one"

IMO, in addition to presenting non-free options there should be a warning presented to the user:

"closed-source firmware brings a potential risk to the safety of Your systems and Your data, and additionally newest firmware has 50% probability of serious regressions, which can break Your business activities for undefined amount of time -> don't use non free firmware unless it is *absolutely* necessary for Your hardware to work, and don't upgrade the firmware if the current version works correctly."

Regards
Bill Gates: "(...) In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their operating system."
The_full_story and Nothing_have_changed

User avatar
ticojohn
Posts: 1284
Joined: 2009-08-29 18:10
Location: Costa Rica
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: General Resolution: Non-Free Firmware. Call for votes :-)

#20 Post by ticojohn »

LE_746F6D617A7A69 wrote: 2022-09-21 21:18 Voted pos 3: "Allow presenting non-free installers alongside the free one"

IMO, in addition to presenting non-free options there should be a warning presented to the user:

"closed-source firmware brings a potential risk to the safety of Your systems and Your data, and additionally newest firmware has 50% probability of serious regressions, which can break Your business activities for undefined amount of time -> don't use non free firmware unless it is *absolutely* necessary for Your hardware to work, and don't upgrade the firmware if the current version works correctly."

Regards
I wholeheartedly agree with you, in principle. Maybe I am being dense, but if the new user doesn't know ahead of time whether they need the non-free firmware how will they be able to make the correct decision? Is there a way that the installer could look at the target hardware and inform the user as to whether they need some particular non-free firmware, and give them the option to select what is needed? I imagine it could be done but is it worth the effort on the part of the developers.
I am not irrational, I'm just quantum probabilistic.

Post Reply