I agree with you 100% about Snaps. I only brought them up because one of the common complaints is that the Snap server is not open source. This is why it's wei

I agree with you 100% about Snaps. I only brought them up because one of the common complaints is that the Snap server is not open source. This is why it's weird to me that FOSS supporters would push potential Debian users to Ubuntu where there is even a higher dependency on non-free software. Regarding non-free support, assuming the firmware is in Debian's non-free repository, Debian already provides support. From their policy[1], distributed non-free software "must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them." That sounds to me like they already offer support (whatever that means for a volunteer-driven project). So they already release unofficial installers with non-free binaries included, already have a repository that contains non-free binaries, and seemingly offer limited technical support for non-free binaries. Yet they have opted to not readily present these options easily to a potential user. [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive#s-non-free https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive#s-non-fr...