On Sun 28 Feb 2021 at 14:27:24 -0500, Celejar wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:11:51 +0000 > Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Sun 28 Feb 2021 at 12:03:31 -0500, Celejar wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:49:58 +0000 > > > Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri 26 Feb 2021 at 16:28:56 -0500, Dan Ritter wrote: > > > > > > > > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:41:40PM +0000, Brian wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The > > > > > > > problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users > > > > > > > with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is > > > > > > > advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better > > > > > > > (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to > > > > > > > mind! > > > > > > > > > > > > No easy solution to that, sigh. > > > > > > > > > > Sure there is -- add a link directly underneath it saying "if > > > > > you require wireless connectivity during the installation, you > > > > > may need to use this [link: alternate installer]." > > > > > > > > "if you require wireless connectivity during the installation, we > > > > have a much better installer for you. [link: alternate installer]." > > > > > > > > (Don't ask ask why the inferior installer is prominent :).) > > > > > > Snark aside, what's wrong with something like this: > > > > > > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require > > > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included > > > in the standard installation images, due to Debian's free software > > > ideals. If the network hardware your installation will rely upon > > > requires such firmware, you may consider using the alternate non-free > > > installation images available here." > > > > Submitted as a bug against www.debian.org, it could fly. However, > > the word "standard" seems superfluous. It implies the existemce of > > non-standard (non-free?) installer images and these, of course, > > would not be capable of distribution. Bear in mind there is only > > I don't think I really understand your points - as per others posts in > this thread, there are certainly things that are entirely "capable of > distribution" but Debian still will not include in the standard > installation (for reasons that I completely respect). This is exactly > what the "unofficial" images are - they contain "proprietary but > redistributable firmware," and Debian is willing to distribute them > from project architecture, just not as a "standard" (my term) installer: > > https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/
Presumabely, this space https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/ could contain as many packages as there are developers willing to commit packages there, free or non-free. Or is it reserved only for the specific images we are discussing? In the case of installer images, could there be many official "non-official" offerings? It is as well to note that non-free is not considered to be part of Debian: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html Your patch to the main web page could be submitted. I acknowledge the visibilty issue. Whether the suggestion is accepted or not might clarify things. -- Brian.
