On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:57:11PM +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > I vote for: > 1- putting the non-free firmware on all our images, > 2- let the installer check whether they are needed, > 3- if yes, let the user decide:
I agree with this. While I also believe non-free firmware should not be
encouraged, our current behaviour of making non-free installers
available but difficult to find is just annoying users.
If the user's system works fine without the non-free firmware, was any
harm done by having it part of the installer? Especially if nothing of
it was installed?
If the user's system needs non-free firmware to function properly
(working screen, network and input devices are definitely necessary),
then what is the harm of not including the non-free firmware in the
installer? Time wasted for the user, who has to go back and find out if
there is something that does work. If it wasn't clear to the user when
downloading the installer that there were multiple versions of the
installer, then the user might think Debian just doesn't work on his
computer, and will go elsewhere. They will also complain and lower our
reputation.
Having the *choice* during installer time to proceed with non-free
firmware or to stick to ideals is a good thing: it will make users aware
that there is an issue, and they can decide for themself whether to
continue or not, without adding unnecessary hoops to jump through.
--
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
Guus Sliepen <g...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
