1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Non-free%20firmwares%20in%20installer&In-Reply-To=%3C4D8BA293.4070800%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="003591.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="003597.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer</H1>
<B>andre999</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Non-free%20firmwares%20in%20installer&In-Reply-To=%3C4D8BA293.4070800%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer">andr55 at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Thu Mar 24 20:59:15 CET 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="003591.html">[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="003597.html">[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#3625">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#3625">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#3625">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#3625">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
><i>
</I>><i> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:39, Wolfgang Bornath<<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">molch.b at googlemail.com</A>> wrote:
</I>>><i> But I don't think it would be a good idea to include non-free contents
</I>>><i> in the distribution ISOs at all. That this assumed majority does not
</I>>><i> care about the issue does not mean we should not care either. We
</I>>><i> should rather stress the point.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> We already made such a difference by using different repositories, we
</I>>><i> not continue this in our "product line"? We use a different repo for
</I>>><i> non-free, we also should use a different ISO for non-free.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Well, that's precisely debatable (and why I'll try to setup a relevant
</I>><i> survey through marcom). The ISO can be seen as a static commodity
</I>><i> storage; that it holds core and nonfree makes no such difference as
</I>><i> that those two media are available from the network without
</I>><i> discrimination.
</I>><i>
</I>
exactly.
Adding these non-free drivers -- for which a reliable free equivalent
doesn't exist -- would take a very small part of the dvd, which would
thus remain essentially free.
(We could even call it "essentially free, with some proprietary drivers."
This approach would remove the need to produce another iso to fill the
gap caused by missing drivers.
And options during installation will allow purists to avoid installing
any non-free drivers -- at the expense of having a system that doesn't
fully function, of course. But that is their legitimate choice.
At the same time, those wanting their system to work "out of the box"
will be satisfied as well.
><i> So yes, the ISO in itself would not be free anymore; but as long as
</I>><i> the install process does not pick into the nonfree media unless the
</I>><i> user asks to, what does it make an issue (not that I have no idea
</I>><i> about that, just that I'd like to see it expressed again from a
</I>><i> different POV of mine - and that will help for the survey definition
</I>><i> too).
</I>><i>
</I>><i> And that would make the case for a consistent installing experience
</I>><i> that, no matter you're doing an exclusively ISO-based install or a
</I>><i> network-based install, you get through the same steps (with a
</I>><i> consistent opt-in or opt-out, clearly explained). It would only happen
</I>><i> that non-free media is available locally if asked for.
</I>
good point. This will make support easier as well.
><i> The alternative, if we're not to mix things on the static media, is to
</I>><i> have distinct ISOs: free and nonfree/tainted ones. Times the format:
</I>><i> DVD/CD/arch/USB through which we would have to decide to ease:
</I>><i> building, qa and distribution (we will have to choose a default one to
</I>><i> provide to visitors on the download page for instance).
</I>
I think we should avoid unnecessary complexity.
As well, a single dvd (for each of 32 & 64 bit) will avoid the problem
of users downloading the free dvd only to find that they need the
missing drivers.
But those really concerned could easily produce a non-official dvd
without the few non-free drivers.
another 2 cents :)
><i>
</I>><i> Romain
</I>
--
André
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="003591.html">[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="003597.html">[Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#3625">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#3625">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#3625">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#3625">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
