- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The way is cleared for Debian 5
|
|
|
Comments (53)
33 earlier comments in the full thread.
@bigg: Debian is the basis of lots of other distros. As such it's a bit of a special case. What I personally run or don't run really isn't the issue.
If Debian removed eveything potentially sourceless from the kernel it would break the OS in terms of hardware support for a lot of users The likely result would be that a lot of folks would abandon Debian or fork it. All I did in my original post was to congratulate the user community on their common sense and pragmatism. The Debian user community made this decision and I certainly believe it should be respected.
I also have posted a rather controversial opinion before, one I am going to repeat now: I believe FSF ideology and the accompanying zealotry in the Linux community hurts Linux adoption and the perception of Linux by people outside the community. I am actually of the opinion that FSF and its supporters do far more harm than good.
We often conflate Free and Open Source Software and there is an overlap. I support and recommend Open Source Software (OSS) without the "F". I do not support the Free Software movement or its ideology and principles. There is a definite difference between the two.
I think Steven hit on an excellent solution: offer two kernels and let the user make a choice in the installation process. Just don't hold back a major release waiting for the second kernel to be available.
If Debian removed eveything potentially sourceless from the kernel it would break the OS in terms of hardware support for a lot of users The likely result would be that a lot of folks would abandon Debian or fork it. All I did in my original post was to congratulate the user community on their common sense and pragmatism. The Debian user community made this decision and I certainly believe it should be respected.
I also have posted a rather controversial opinion before, one I am going to repeat now: I believe FSF ideology and the accompanying zealotry in the Linux community hurts Linux adoption and the perception of Linux by people outside the community. I am actually of the opinion that FSF and its supporters do far more harm than good.
We often conflate Free and Open Source Software and there is an overlap. I support and recommend Open Source Software (OSS) without the "F". I do not support the Free Software movement or its ideology and principles. There is a definite difference between the two.
I think Steven hit on an excellent solution: offer two kernels and let the user make a choice in the installation process. Just don't hold back a major release waiting for the second kernel to be available.
> The likely result would be that a lot of folks would abandon Debian or fork it.
And I'm saying that it doesn't make any difference if you are following the DFSG. Your religion says that the DFSG are immoral. That's fine, but Debian is guided by the DFSG.
> I believe FSF ideology and the accompanying zealotry in the Linux community hurts Linux adoption and the perception of Linux by people outside the community.
Too bad you can't provide examples of FSF zealotry. All I see is a bunch of guys working hard to produce free software. I see a zealot and it's not anyone from the FSF. I see someone preaching sermons, and it's not anyone from the FSF. "Anything to feed my hatred of Microsoft" is most of the preaching I see in the Linux community.
By the way, you do a good job of phrasing things just to get a reaction. You don't like free software, so be it. Quickly going into name calling doesn't help the debate.
If someone wants to provide free software I don't understand why you should be critical.
What magical power does the FSF even have to restrict your actions?
And I'm saying that it doesn't make any difference if you are following the DFSG. Your religion says that the DFSG are immoral. That's fine, but Debian is guided by the DFSG.
> I believe FSF ideology and the accompanying zealotry in the Linux community hurts Linux adoption and the perception of Linux by people outside the community.
Too bad you can't provide examples of FSF zealotry. All I see is a bunch of guys working hard to produce free software. I see a zealot and it's not anyone from the FSF. I see someone preaching sermons, and it's not anyone from the FSF. "Anything to feed my hatred of Microsoft" is most of the preaching I see in the Linux community.
By the way, you do a good job of phrasing things just to get a reaction. You don't like free software, so be it. Quickly going into name calling doesn't help the debate.
If someone wants to provide free software I don't understand why you should be critical.
What magical power does the FSF even have to restrict your actions?
Whoa! What an over the top reaction!
I am NOT religious about software, period. That is the WHOLE POINT of what I was saying about zealotry. I agree with you that people tend to preach against Microsoft and that probably turns off Windows users who might otherwise consider Linux.
I didn't phrase anything to get a reaction from you or anyone else. I expressed my opinion which is opposite from the majority here. I will grant you that contrary opinions do tend to get strong reactions. OTOH, if you didn't want to have a variety of opinions why have a discussion forum at all?
I have no problem with someone providing free software. I'm not critical of that. I have a problem with saying it's free software or the highway. All I did say was that I thought the majority decision of the Debian community was a wise one.
The FSF does not restrict my actions. It does, however, through the actions and word of its supporters, paint a picture of the community that is sometimes decidedly unflattering.
I am NOT religious about software, period. That is the WHOLE POINT of what I was saying about zealotry. I agree with you that people tend to preach against Microsoft and that probably turns off Windows users who might otherwise consider Linux.
I didn't phrase anything to get a reaction from you or anyone else. I expressed my opinion which is opposite from the majority here. I will grant you that contrary opinions do tend to get strong reactions. OTOH, if you didn't want to have a variety of opinions why have a discussion forum at all?
I have no problem with someone providing free software. I'm not critical of that. I have a problem with saying it's free software or the highway. All I did say was that I thought the majority decision of the Debian community was a wise one.
The FSF does not restrict my actions. It does, however, through the actions and word of its supporters, paint a picture of the community that is sometimes decidedly unflattering.
Caitlyn,
Just look at the terms that you used in your earlier post
"common sense and pragmatism" "zealotry"
If those words are not intended to be an insult to those who disagree with you, I don't know what they _are_ intended to do. You clearly disagree with free software. You like open source. That's fine. You should realize that there can be reasonable, common sense, pragmatic, non-zealous reasons to believe in free software.
Just look at the terms that you used in your earlier post
"common sense and pragmatism" "zealotry"
If those words are not intended to be an insult to those who disagree with you, I don't know what they _are_ intended to do. You clearly disagree with free software. You like open source. That's fine. You should realize that there can be reasonable, common sense, pragmatic, non-zealous reasons to believe in free software.
I love this. Dino and TC in agreement, and me with them. What a wonderful start to the new year.
Principles are wonderful things. I have several very off topic ones I could spout on about for hours, but suffice to say, "Z.A.P." I started using Debian because of those principles, and unlike Dino I find that it continues to work for me.
The principles behind the "main" repository are laudable, and explicit, and the fact that specific compromises are made doesn't change the fact that they must be explicitly made. The principles themselves are not compromised, save in the same way that I compromise with someone else walking on the sidewalk by stepping to the side even if they were over into "my half" of the sidewalk and by principle they should have moved over more than I.
Debian is huge, and gets lots of attention. That is a GoodThing(tm, reg us pat off), it means that the principles of volunteer collaborative development and Libre software for the sake of Libre gets lots of attention.
But as mentioned, no one is going to be completely satisfied by what anyone else produces (if you want it done right, you have to do it yourself). That's why there is more than one distribution.
BTW, TxtEdMacs, the reason that the patent system doesn't make sense is because it's a government program. It's purpose is not to make sense, it's purpose is to serve vested interests and generate campaign contributions.
Principles are wonderful things. I have several very off topic ones I could spout on about for hours, but suffice to say, "Z.A.P." I started using Debian because of those principles, and unlike Dino I find that it continues to work for me.
The principles behind the "main" repository are laudable, and explicit, and the fact that specific compromises are made doesn't change the fact that they must be explicitly made. The principles themselves are not compromised, save in the same way that I compromise with someone else walking on the sidewalk by stepping to the side even if they were over into "my half" of the sidewalk and by principle they should have moved over more than I.
Debian is huge, and gets lots of attention. That is a GoodThing(tm, reg us pat off), it means that the principles of volunteer collaborative development and Libre software for the sake of Libre gets lots of attention.
But as mentioned, no one is going to be completely satisfied by what anyone else produces (if you want it done right, you have to do it yourself). That's why there is more than one distribution.
BTW, TxtEdMacs, the reason that the patent system doesn't make sense is because it's a government program. It's purpose is not to make sense, it's purpose is to serve vested interests and generate campaign contributions.
Quoting:Can't you do the same by booting a gnewsense live CD? You wouldn't have to install, but it seems to me that would be a way to check if anything doesn't work.
That's a great idea. Even though I'm by no means a militant anti-blob advocate, I am adamant about users both knowing exactly what they're running and having the choice to run what they wish and dump what they don't want.
While it's not the main reason I run it, OpenBSD has an anti-blob policy. That policy is, pardon the pun, a driving force behind developer efforts to write drivers for unsupported devices.
I'm definitely going to burn a gNewSense CD.
FYI, Wikipedia has an entry for "binary blob":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blob
From that page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blob
From that page:
Quoting:When they can neither get hardware documentation nor device driver source code from a hardware vendor, some operating system projects, including NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonFly BSD, and some GNU/Linux distributions, accept binary blobs as a fast route to the missing or enhanced functionality these blobs provide.
The OpenBSD project has a notable policy of not accepting any binary blobs into its source tree, citing not only the potential for undetectable or irreparable security flaws but also its encroachment onto the openness and freedom of their software.
Among GNU/Linux distributions, the gNewSense distribution is the most known for being actively against binary blobs. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is actively campaigning against binary blobs and recommends gNewSense.
Whoa!!!
Binary blob?
I thought you were talking about Binary Bob, computer specialist to the Stars' pets.
This changes everything.
Binary blob?
I thought you were talking about Binary Bob, computer specialist to the Stars' pets.
This changes everything.
@bigg
Also see section 4. So debian is not really based on the same principles as FSF and consequently your expectations are mismatched. Also notice that in most cases debian rips out offending code from kernel package (see the kernel's debian changelog) since it is not possible to have it in non-free or contrib.
Quoting: That's my understanding as well. Nevertheless the kernel automatically gets installed (obviously) every time, and again by my understanding, you get the proprietary bits without so much as a warning.I think most of those are in the modules and it should be possible to blacklist those modules, or use gNewSense's kernel. But really you need to simply use gNewSense and not debian which is what FSF recommends anyway (notice there are other violations currently in debian like GLX).
Quoting: I view proprietary firmware as inconsistent with the DFSG.That is only a part of debian's social contract. Section 5 says:
Quoting: Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists).
Also see section 4. So debian is not really based on the same principles as FSF and consequently your expectations are mismatched. Also notice that in most cases debian rips out offending code from kernel package (see the kernel's debian changelog) since it is not possible to have it in non-free or contrib.
> But really you need to simply use gNewSense and not debian which is what FSF recommends anyway
I use Slackware as my main desktop. I happen to prefer free software and don't like the parroting of Mark Shuttleworth's use of "pragmatism" as an excuse to completely ignore the distinction between free and non-free software.
> So debian is not really based on the same principles as FSF and consequently your expectations are mismatched.
What expectations? Did you even bother to read what you are quoting? 'We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works.' Anything that is not free software goes into those repos or it doesn't belong in Debian.
From what I've seen, the debate is not primarily about whether the DFSG should be abandoned. It is about whether firmware is software or hardware, in which case there is no issue, and how you define something to not be in compliance (i.e., should we assume compliance until there is evidence otherwise, or should we just define anything sourceless as a violation).
You seem to be interpreting my comments as a statement that Debian should do things my way. Debian should act according to the DFSG, and not use 'pragmatism' as an excuse to ignore the DFSG. My own preferences are irrelevant. I wish those on the other side of the argument could see that their own preferences are also irrelevant. You don't ignore the rules anytime they are inconvenient, otherwise the DFSG is just a list of things that sounded good at the time.
I use Slackware as my main desktop. I happen to prefer free software and don't like the parroting of Mark Shuttleworth's use of "pragmatism" as an excuse to completely ignore the distinction between free and non-free software.
> So debian is not really based on the same principles as FSF and consequently your expectations are mismatched.
What expectations? Did you even bother to read what you are quoting? 'We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works.' Anything that is not free software goes into those repos or it doesn't belong in Debian.
From what I've seen, the debate is not primarily about whether the DFSG should be abandoned. It is about whether firmware is software or hardware, in which case there is no issue, and how you define something to not be in compliance (i.e., should we assume compliance until there is evidence otherwise, or should we just define anything sourceless as a violation).
You seem to be interpreting my comments as a statement that Debian should do things my way. Debian should act according to the DFSG, and not use 'pragmatism' as an excuse to ignore the DFSG. My own preferences are irrelevant. I wish those on the other side of the argument could see that their own preferences are also irrelevant. You don't ignore the rules anytime they are inconvenient, otherwise the DFSG is just a list of things that sounded good at the time.
Again, we're talking about the kernel, not the free and non-free repositories. Ånd again, it would be nice if Debian at the minimum made an effort to educate users as to what's in the kernel supplied by the project. I'm sure all of us would rather have open-source drivers, but it's better to be informed of the situation instead of being told, "just run gNewSense," which I plan to do later today anyway just to see what runs and what doesn't.
Quoting: What expectations? Did you even bother to read what you are quoting? 'We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works.' Anything that is not free software goes into those repos or it doesn't belong in Debian.You might want to consider the possibility that I have read what was quoted. So you may go back to the context of quote and see that the point being made is that debian's goals are different from FSF. A look at the social contract as a whole shows that the primary objective of debian is to promote use of free software among all computer users (see sections 4 and 5 for case in point where both free software as well as users are priority). Most people, including many of debian's founders and devs, agree that having debian not work on some hardware for large number of users does little to encourage use of free software rather is detrimental. So although deban devs will drop sourceless firmware bits for hardware which is not commonly used without much ado, support for commonly used hardware is retained till a full resolution is done by way of either obtaining the source or determining that it is not possible to obtain source.
You may want to see two of the links posted earlier: http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing , http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383403
Quoting: Debian should act according to the DFSG, and not use 'pragmatism' as an excuse to ignore the DFSG. ... You don't ignore the rules anytime they are inconvenient, otherwise the DFSG is just a list of things that sounded good at the time.(it is social contract and not DFSG) I think you have lost the context of vote. It is just being optimistic that the DSFG licensed bits whose source is still not available can be procured in future so as to not delay release of lenny any further.
Quoting: And again, it would be nice if Debian at the minimum made an effort to educate users as to what's in the kernel supplied by the project.A better place to start this would be in upstream linux kernel rather than debian. If anyone, its the upstream that is being sloppy here.
> So you may go back to the context of quote and see that the point being made is that debian's goals are different from FSF.
What the #### does the FSF have to do with this? I keep posting about the DFSG and you keep talking about the FSF. Let me be clear:
I'm not talking about the FSF. You are. I'm talking about the DFSG.
If you want to keep debating about FSF!=DFSG with yourself, be my guest. If the DFSG doesn't apply anytime someone has hardware that doesn't work, then shipping Broadcom firmware on the Debian CD is also fine.
What the #### does the FSF have to do with this? I keep posting about the DFSG and you keep talking about the FSF. Let me be clear:
I'm not talking about the FSF. You are. I'm talking about the DFSG.
If you want to keep debating about FSF!=DFSG with yourself, be my guest. If the DFSG doesn't apply anytime someone has hardware that doesn't work, then shipping Broadcom firmware on the Debian CD is also fine.
Some of us were framing the debate (not DFSG specific, but Free vs. Open Source) in the terms "pragmatism" vs. "purity" long before Ubuntu or Mark Shuttleworth showed up on the Linux scene. This is a very old argument, one without any chance of the two sides ever seeing eye to eye. Please don't accuse me or anyone else who has been around for a while of parroting. I believe people on both sides of this argument are capable of framing their own thoughts rationally.
"You don't ignore the rules anytime they are inconvenient, otherwise the DFSG is just a list of things that sounded good at the time."
Rules aren't things set in stone. This isn't a religion, remember? Rules get changed all the time to meet changing conditions. In the case of a democratic organization, which Debian is, the community can change the rules if they no longer fit the current goals of the organization or no longer make sense under current conditions. As the community membership changes and grows it only makes sense that rules may change. Does that apply to the DFSG? That's not for me to decide. It isn't for you to decide either. The Debian community will make its own decisions. At most you are I will get one vote each.
"You don't ignore the rules anytime they are inconvenient, otherwise the DFSG is just a list of things that sounded good at the time."
Rules aren't things set in stone. This isn't a religion, remember? Rules get changed all the time to meet changing conditions. In the case of a democratic organization, which Debian is, the community can change the rules if they no longer fit the current goals of the organization or no longer make sense under current conditions. As the community membership changes and grows it only makes sense that rules may change. Does that apply to the DFSG? That's not for me to decide. It isn't for you to decide either. The Debian community will make its own decisions. At most you are I will get one vote each.
The solution is simple, compile your own kernel. It's both easy and fun. Not only will you get a performance boost but you also get to choose exactly what and how it's included. You can't do that in any other OS. And Debian provides the tools to make it so simple.
My custom-compiled kernel includes only 2 blobs required by my hardware and those two are compiled in as modules so that they can be removed at any time (e.g. when not needed or after a hardware upgrade). The compilation time was under 15 min and compiz runs up to 10% faster now. It took me a couple of days to read through the documentation and select the proper configuration options but now i can do it in less than half an hour.
I'm writing this post because some might get the wrong impression that once they install Debian it is difficult and over-technical to adjust it to their liking. Exactly the opposite is true; Debian is one of the most easily customizable distros which is probably one of the reasons that serves as a basis for so many of them.
My custom-compiled kernel includes only 2 blobs required by my hardware and those two are compiled in as modules so that they can be removed at any time (e.g. when not needed or after a hardware upgrade). The compilation time was under 15 min and compiz runs up to 10% faster now. It took me a couple of days to read through the documentation and select the proper configuration options but now i can do it in less than half an hour.
I'm writing this post because some might get the wrong impression that once they install Debian it is difficult and over-technical to adjust it to their liking. Exactly the opposite is true; Debian is one of the most easily customizable distros which is probably one of the reasons that serves as a basis for so many of them.
> You can't do that in any other OS.
Not even the BSD's and OpenSolaris?
Not even the BSD's and OpenSolaris?
"Not even the BSD's and OpenSolaris?"
I should have been more accurate and say 'in any proprietary OS'. BSD's and OpenSolaris I've never used so can you? And if you can how easy is the process for a common user? Also, from what I understand, BSD licenses have several restrictions not present in the GPL and are designed with integration with proprietary software in mind. Can you remove the proprietary parts(if any) and still have a functioning BSD kernel? Are BSD users interested in such questions?
I should have been more accurate and say 'in any proprietary OS'. BSD's and OpenSolaris I've never used so can you? And if you can how easy is the process for a common user? Also, from what I understand, BSD licenses have several restrictions not present in the GPL and are designed with integration with proprietary software in mind. Can you remove the proprietary parts(if any) and still have a functioning BSD kernel? Are BSD users interested in such questions?
> I should have been more accurate and say 'in any proprietary OS...
Agreed.
> BSD's and OpenSolaris I've never used so can you?
I can't say from personal experience, but a quick Google search for compiling bsd kernel indicates that you can. I'm not going to worry about OpenSolaris tonight.
> BSD licenses have several restrictions not present in the GPL
The BSD folks would argue that you have that backwards.
> Can you remove the proprietary parts(if any) and still have a functioning BSD kernel?
The BSD's are a diverse lot. Some of them are more strict about those matters than Linux.
> Are BSD users interested in such questions?
Very much so, from what I've seen of their discussions of the matter.
Agreed.
> BSD's and OpenSolaris I've never used so can you?
I can't say from personal experience, but a quick Google search for compiling bsd kernel indicates that you can. I'm not going to worry about OpenSolaris tonight.
> BSD licenses have several restrictions not present in the GPL
The BSD folks would argue that you have that backwards.
> Can you remove the proprietary parts(if any) and still have a functioning BSD kernel?
The BSD's are a diverse lot. Some of them are more strict about those matters than Linux.
> Are BSD users interested in such questions?
Very much so, from what I've seen of their discussions of the matter.
Quoting:Debian is one of the most easily customizable distros which is probably one of the reasons that serves as a basis for so many of them.
That's exactly why.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
It should work for all the normal stuff. It may even work for the on-demand compiled stuff (like drivers built with module-assistant).