On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 6:26 AM Curt wrote:
>
> On 2024-04-22, Reid wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry I irked you so much Curt, but you don't have to be rude.
>
> I'm Curt.
Let's be serious. You be Frank and I'll be Earnest.
On 2024-04-22, Reid wrote:
>
> I'm sorry I irked you so much Curt, but you don't have to be rude.
I'm Curt.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 05:02:09PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> > Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact?
> >> > Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html
> >> Maybe `reportbug debian-installer`?
> > but perhaps without all the decepti
>> > Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact?
>> > Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html
>> Maybe `reportbug debian-installer`?
> but perhaps without all the deception crap, unless you really mean
> to impugn the developers' motives.
Yu
Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> That's probably a bug in Calamares. I checked with one of the live cd
> maintainers on this. As has been pointed out, the live cd is really
> intended more for checking than for major use but it does need some work.
> If you found the non-free compon
- Original message -
From: Curt
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, Curt wrote:
>
>> How can you be taken seriously when you can't even wrap your lines
>> according to our venerable guidelines?
>> Get a popular setting going, buddy.
>>
>> And, though it's true I extolled Proust recently, being succinct
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 11:31:03AM -0700, Reid wrote:
> Debian's policy change on non-free-firmware has made much of the Debian.org
> website very misleading, and some Debian OS installers have become very
> Free Software UNfriendly and deceptive. The following is my experience,
>
On 2024-04-22, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>
> I endure this on many other mailing lists unrelated to Debian,
> particularly from groups.io that have a Web interface.
It's a violation of Debian mailing list posting rules, guidelines, and
tips.
It irks me that in certain cases these guidelines are evoke
* On 2024 22 Apr 09:39 -0500, Curt wrote:
> On 2024-04-21, Reid wrote:
> > You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of
> > release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is
> > not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy",
On 2024-04-22, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, Curt wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-21, Reid wrote:
>>> You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of
>>> release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is
>>> not what the Debian.or
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, Curt wrote:
> On 2024-04-21, Reid wrote:
>> You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of
>> release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is
>> not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy", and "Who We
On 2024-04-21, Reid wrote:
> You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of
> release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is
> not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy", and "Who We
> Are / What We Do" pages are current
On Sun Apr 21, 2024 at 9:58 PM BST, Reid wrote:
> If the Installers are not ALL going to give users the choice to opt-in
> or opt-out of non-free components, then those above-mentioned
> promotional pages really need to be updated so as to not be misleading
> users.
I'm sure th
Our Philosophy", and "Who We Are / What We Do" pages are currently
> promoting Debian as.
>
> That's not right. Period. If the Installers are not ALL going to
> give users the choice to opt-in or opt-out of non-free components,
> then those above-mentioned promo
On Sun 21 Apr 2024 at 21:59:21 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact?
> > Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html
>
> Maybe `reportbug debian-installer`?
but perhaps without all the deception crap, un
> Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact?
> Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html
Maybe `reportbug debian-installer`?
Stefan
s
>> of the new policy on the download pages.
>
> Agreed. It should be easy to adjust the installation process with an
> extra step whether to include/install non-free-firmware or not.
> It's also an opportunity to raise awareness of the problem.
inent warnings
>> of the new policy on the download pages.
>
> Agreed. It should be easy to adjust the installation process with an
> extra step whether to include/install non-free-firmware or not.
> It's also an opportunity to raise awareness of the problem.
do you think the debian gods are listening
ges.
Agreed. It should be easy to adjust the installation process with an
extra step whether to include/install non-free-firmware or not.
It's also an opportunity to raise awareness of the problem.
Stefan
ly promoting Debian as.
That's not right. Period. If the Installers are not ALL going to give users the
choice to opt-in or opt-out of non-free components, then those above-mentioned
promotional pages really need to be updated so as to not be misleading users.
But BETTER yet, why not just
On 21 Apr 2024 11:31 -0700, from reid...@proinbox.com (Reid):
> I'm a 10+ year Debian user, and a longtime Free Software supporter.
> Two weeks ago I was shocked to discover 29 non-free components in
> the Debian desktop I'd been using for the last couple months. There
> had
Debian's policy change on non-free-firmware has made much of the Debian.org
website very misleading, and some Debian OS installers have become very Free
Software UNfriendly and deceptive. The following is my experience, and the
reasons why I believe Debian must re-word their promotiona
ly?
(Also I forgot to include that I have this driver installed on my current
machine
in the first email I included list of firmares - only this one was missed -
perhaps because it is in misc/main group in aptitude and not in
kernel/non-free-firmware)
Martin
On Wed 01 Nov 2023 at 14:42:17 (+0100), Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 02:09:57PM +0100, Marco M. wrote:
> > Am 01.11.2023 um 13:59:51 Uhr schrieb Martin:
> >
> > Do you have USB NICs?
> > Does your computer has an Ethernet NIC (wired)?
> >
> > Then use them for installing the packages.
On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 02:09:57PM +0100, Marco M. wrote:
> Am 01.11.2023 um 13:59:51 Uhr schrieb Martin:
>
> Do you have USB NICs?
> Does your computer has an Ethernet NIC (wired)?
>
> Then use them for installing the packages.
I have one computer with wifi connection to internet.
The problem i
Am 01.11.2023 um 13:59:51 Uhr schrieb Martin:
> The problem is that my wifi receiver is not recognized by installer.
Do you have USB NICs?
Does your computer has an Ethernet NIC (wired)?
Then use them for installing the packages.
> My wifi adapter is TP-LINK TL-WN722N
Relevant is the USB-ID/PC
Hello,
I am currently using Sid version of Debian - in /etc/apt/sources.list i have:
deb http://httpredir.debian.org/debian/ sid main contrib non-free
non-free-firmware
non-free and non-free-firmware I have because of drivers I need for my machine
(most acute is wifi receiver, but i guess for
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 19:18:30 +0100
Computer Enthusiastic wrote:
> The web page used to search packages in Debian repositories at:
>
> https://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
>
> seems not to search for packages in the recently created
> "non-free-firmware"
Hello,
The web page used to search packages in Debian repositories at:
https://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
seems not to search for packages in the recently created
"non-free-firmware" section for bookwork and sid.
To whom this should be reported ?
Thanks.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 04:03:51 -0800
"Rick Thomas" wrote:
Hello Rick,
>So what do I need to add to my sources.list file to get them back now?
There was an announcement a few days ago, saying what to do. Typically,
I cannot find it ATM.
However, you simply need to add;
non-fre
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 23:21, Rick Thomas wrote:
> I've got a couple of Debian systems that (for various reasons) are running
> "testing" or "sid".
> I recently did
> apt update && apt upgrade && aptitude search '~o'
> on these machines and found that a number of firmware packages a
I've got a couple of Debian systems that (for various reasons) are running
"testing" or "sid". I recently did
apt update && apt upgrade && aptitude search '~o'
on these machines and found that a number of firmware packages are considered
"obsolete", presumably because they are no lo
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 21:19:55 +0100
Sven Joachim wrote:
> Sorry, that was my fault. I should have given the link to outcome of
> the vote as well, it was Option 5 "Change SC for non-free firmware in
> installer, one installer"[1].
Thank you. My question is answered.
--
ven the link to outcome of
the vote as well, it was Option 5 "Change SC for non-free firmware in
installer, one installer"[1].
Cheers,
Sven
1. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2022/10/msg1.html
ller to do so. However, I am not
familiar enough with Debian processes to determine which language was
approved, so I could not determine the answer to my question.
> If you are making a wholly new install, I suspect that the change
> will be made for you if the need for non-free firmware is detected
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:47:21AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 18:09:27 +0100
> Sven Joachim wrote:
>
> > To use the new section, edit sources.list like this:
> >
> > before:
> > deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 18:09:27 +0100
Sven Joachim wrote:
> To use the new section, edit sources.list like this:
>
> before:
> deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free
>
> after:
> deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free
>
Some news for you who are running unstable or testing/bookworm and have
firmware packages installed from non-free (most users who do not run
Debian in a VM probably have): these firmware packages are being moved
to a new section non-free-firmware, and you should update your
sources.list(5) entries
-
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/11.6.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-cd/firmware-11.6.0-amd64-netinst.iso
(CD size installer that requires network to continue to download)
-
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/11.6.0+nonfree/amd6
but i use hard disk installation method, i put firmware in same place as
iso image, installer can locate firmware without prompting me
that sport the latest Intel 12th generation
CPUs with Intel Iris Xe graphics and Intel AX211 wireless chipsets that are
capable of WiFi 6e. The current backported versions for Bullseye are more than
18 months' old.
Now is the time for maintainers to backport the latest non-free drivers in
p
Hi Leroy,
On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 07:43:45AM +, Leroy McFarland wrote:
> The non-free drivers in Bullseye's repos are dated 20210315, more than a year
> ago.
What is the package name that you are looking at within non-free?
Once you've worked that out, the next step is pr
Hi
The non-free drivers in Bullseye's repos are dated 20210315, more than a year
ago.
Could the maintainers build a backport that contains 20220815 or 20220913
drivers please?
Thanks.
Leroy
gt;> if you pick the right hardware, Debian works directly today.
>>
>> By "right hardware", I assume you mean hardware that comes with already
>> preinstalled non-free software?
>
> Yes, or (preferrably) hardware that does not come with non-free software
> at al
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 07:38:55AM -0400, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
[...]
> Thanks Tomas
You're welcome :)
Cheers
--
t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 7:29 AM wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 07:19:10AM -0400, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Is there a non-free installer for bookworm?
>
> Somewhere below here:
>
>
> https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-fre
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 07:19:10AM -0400, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
> All,
>
> Is there a non-free installer for bookworm?
Somewhere below here:
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/daily-builds/sid_d-i/current/
...depending on what
All,
Is there a non-free installer for bookworm?
Thanks
Tim
ot know which chip you've
> > > got until you look at the board, or even read its codes from
> > > the dmesg output.
> > >
> > > Being non-free, the firmware usually originates/d from some
> > > manufacturer or other. If the firmware fails to work w
> > enough to know the model number of the card. Many "identical"
> > models are sold with various different chips, which will
> > require different firmware. You might not know which chip you've
> > got until you look at the board, or even read its codes from
sold with various different chips, which will
> require different firmware. You might not know which chip you've
> got until you look at the board, or even read its codes from
> the dmesg output.
>
> Being non-free, the firmware usually originates/d from some
> manufacture
that something like a requirement that at
> > > least one other person attest that an installation image worked for them
> > > (on the target hardware).
> >
> > AIUI the Debian Install System Team build the Debian installer, and
> > the aforementioned Debian Imag
er team. It is "unofficail"
>after all.
Time to set this straight, I think...
I'm the team lead and main developer in the Debian Images Team (aka
debian-cd), and I have been for many years now. *I* did the work to
add the unofficial images that include non-free firmware. They&#
d
> the aforementioned Debian Images Team put it into the unofficial
> images, along with some extra .debs and a couple of Packages files.
> So I'm not sure I understand exactly what this person/group would
> be expected to vet.
If there are non-free non-official Debian installers
On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 11:40:00 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:36:42 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet them,
> > or
> > maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at least one
>
On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 10:54:14 (+), Leandro neto wrote:
> I volunteer to be [ ] a mirror on Rio de Janeiro Brasil. I build computers
> but I don't know about programming leandro
AIUI we're not talking about mirrors, but about building the software
that might eventually be mirrored.
Cheers,
On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:36:42 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:01:09 PM David Wright wrote:
Brian wrote: '"+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian
installer that comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?'
> > I was under the impression that "The Deb
I volunteer to beca mirror on Rio de Janeiro Brasil. I build computers but I don't know about programming leandro
Enviado via UOL Mail
_
Assunto: Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]
De: rhkra...@gmail.com
Enviado em: 3 de março de 2021
On 2021-03-03, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:01:09 PM David Wright wrote:
>> I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
>> team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
>> images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing
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!
>
> Indeed, that was my characteristion of the issue. However, it appears
> to have
t; https://www.debian.org/distrib/
> >
> > What's the problem?
>
> I thought the problem was as described in this from Brian:
>
> Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]
> From: Brian (resent from debian-user@lists.debian.org)
> To: d
roblem was as described in this from Brian:
Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]
From: Brian (resent from debian-user@lists.debian.org)
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Fri Feb 26 13:41:40 2021
...
A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
problem wit
th an adapter that uses the p54usb
> > driver. It requires firmware that needs to be extracted from the device
> > and there aren't any such files in the non-free archive. I imagine there
> > are other similar devices.
> >
> > I can easlily provide explana
ds to be extracted from the device
> > and there aren't any such files in the non-free archive. I imagine there
> > are other similar devices.
> >
> > I can easlily provide explanatory text about why my installer is needed
> > and why it would benefit users. Would
On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:01:09 PM David Wright wrote:
> I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
> team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
> images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like
> a wiki where any Tom, Dick or
sonable explanatory text about why some other
> > installer may be required and a link to a place where you can find one
> > or more.
>
> My installer is aimed at users with an adapter that uses the p54usb
> driver. It requires firmware that needs to be extracted from the device
February 28, 2021 12:03:31 PM Celejar wrote:
> > > > > "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 imag
t; > > "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 i
ny 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
On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 02:55:08 PM Brian wrote:
> On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 08:13:13 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2021 12:03:31 PM Celejar wrote:
> > > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > > non-free fir
On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 08:13:13 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2021 12:03:31 PM Celejar wrote:
> > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > non-free firmware to function properly. This firmware is not included
> > in
On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 11:29:57 +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Du, 28 feb 21, 12:03:31, Celejar wrote:
> >
> > Snark aside, what's wrong with something like this:
> >
> > "Many wireless network cards (and even some wired ones) require
> > non-free f
On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 10:23:51 +, David Goodenough wrote:
> How is a naive user meant to know whether his hardware required
> non-free firmware?
That's a very tricky one to give a definitive answer to. It possibly
depends on the quality and quantity of research done by the user
On Sunday, February 28, 2021 12:03:31 PM Celejar wrote:
> "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. I
t; > "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 in
How is a naive user meant to know whether his hardware required non-free
firmware?
The only route that seems to be given by this wording is that they install (or
try to install)
the system using the official image, and then have to work out for themselves
what does
not work, and from that
On Du, 28 feb 21, 12:03:31, Celejar wrote:
>
> 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 installa
gt; > > >
> > > > > > > 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
t; > > 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
> > > > > >
s-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!
> > > >
> > > > N
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
te search is conducted, a better
> (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> mind!
Just FTR, some *wired* ethernet cards also require non-free firmware
not present in the standard images:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=895258
I have no idea how c
gt; 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
hat 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
> > >
ty. 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 s
s
> > 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.
Indeed.
But now we i
- 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.
Cheers
- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
as long as there
> > > are hardware companies out there saying "my firmware is MINE and
> > > you are not allowed to redistribute it" while at the same time
> ~~
> > > spreading this oh-too-valuable-stuff all over the Internets.
bute it" while at the same time
~~
> > spreading this oh-too-valuable-stuff all over the Internets.
>
> It's more complicated than this. Debian is allowed distribute the
> firmware (otherwise it wouldn't be included in non-free or in
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 5:04 PM Anthony DeRobertis
wrote:
> On 11/17/19 3:51 PM, Kenneth Parker wrote:
> >
> > Note: I didn't check "Backports", when I did the install. I could add
> > it, if someone thinks vega20 might be there. Is there a way for me to
> > check?
>
> You can check the version
On 11/17/19 3:51 PM, Kenneth Parker wrote:
Note: I didn't check "Backports", when I did the install. I could add
it, if someone thinks vega20 might be there. Is there a way for me to
check?
You can check the versions of packages at https://packages.debian.org,
so for firmware-amd-graphics
On 2019-11-17 20:48 +, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 21:36:11 +0100, Linux-Fan wrote:
>
>> Brian writes:
>>
>> > On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 21:01:16 +0100, Linux-Fan wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > > Verify report for bug 692728
>> > > Yes, report that bug 692728 has spam
>> > >
>> > > Now I am
Hello,
I am running Buster 10.2 on a Lenovo Ideapad 320, and having significant
Graphics issues. I went through the usual suspects
(linux-firmware-nonfree, firmware-amd-graphics, etc) and am mostly there.
In /lib/firmware/amdgpu, there are lots of entries beginning with vega
(i.e. vega10 and veg
On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 21:36:11 +0100, Linux-Fan wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
> > On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 21:01:16 +0100, Linux-Fan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Verify report for bug 692728
> > > Yes, report that bug 692728 has spam
> > >
> > > Now I am not sure (maybe it's a language thing): Is it OK
Brian writes:
On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 21:01:16 +0100, Linux-Fan wrote:
[...]
>Verify report for bug 692728
>Yes, report that bug 692728 has spam
>
> Now I am not sure (maybe it's a language thing): Is it OK to continue
> eventhough most of the bug is quite important discussion and only
On Sun 17 Nov 2019 at 21:01:16 +0100, Linux-Fan wrote:
> I just came across the following bug:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=692728
> It is really a shame that the program is no longer licensed freely*** :(
>
> If one scrolls down to the last message of the bug, it seems to
ian, my first
reaction was: What it must be in non-free? Then $ apt-cache policy geogebra
revealed `main` so I thought: It's free, nice! Then I went to check and saw
that Debian sid has this old version 4.X where 6 seems to be current... I
wondered if there was a bug about it and yes: That ha
I have installed Stretch on an SSD, with uefi, without any trouble.
Me, as well (9.8).
Here's one thing to watch out for.
Unlike Ubuntu, MInt, etc, debian will not install non-free drivers by
default.
In the virtualbox scenario you had before, VB does an excellent of
emulatin
Alexander Villalba writes:
> why gdb-doc is in non-free ??!:
Because the GNU FDL does not grant the freedoms necessary for free
software.
> gdb-doc is also GNU
The ‘gdb-doc’ work is released by the Free Software Foundation, and they
intend it to be part of the GNU operating syste
Dear Friends!:
why gdb-doc is in non-free ??!:
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gdb-doc
gdb-doc is also GNU
1 - 100 of 733 matches
Mail list logo
