4 ms·

> A free OS with free firmware is definitely better than a free OS with proprietary firmware, but both of those are way better than a proprietary OS with propri

by franga2000 5y ago

> A free OS with free firmware is definitely better than a free OS with proprietary firmware, but both of those are way better than a proprietary OS with proprietary firmware How about all three? We have plenty of very good "open with proprietary firmware" distros, many very similar to debian (Ubuntu, PopOS, Mint, Manjaro...), but not that many good "fully open" ones. That is the whole point of distros. If we dilute Debian's fully open philosophy, we don't really gain anything in middle category, but lose one of the few remaining good fully open distros. To fix your example: "Oh, you say this Debian thing doesn't support my network card? I see why everyone recommended that Pop thing instead, I'll use that then." Debian is not a friendly distro for users who don't know what they're getting themselves into and that's fine. That's why nobody should (and nobody does) recommend it to Windows users looking for their first Linux distro.

regularfry 5y ago
I think part of the problem is identifying which of those alternatives is closest to "exactly Debian, but without the hardware support problems". You really want something which tracks closely enough that bug reports against packages in that distro could be directly and intentionally accepted by Debian's tracker. The problem with accepting "Debian is not a friendly distro and that's fine" is that unlesss the snags are addressed, the number of reasons for people to run off to Pop and Ubuntu will only increase over time. Having a friendlier on-ramp to something that is actually Debian is good, but I suspect you could satisfy the "keep Debian pure" requirement with a fairly thin branding layer.
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  > I think part of the problem is identifying which of those alternatives is closest to "exactly Debian, but without the hardware support problems". That sounds like Debian's non-free ISO.
  - regularfry 5y ago
    Yes, but it needs a different name to create a clear space between Debian's comparative purity and the ideologically messy practicalities of actually getting the hardware working. Technically there's little challenge, the hard work on that part has been done.

regularfry 5y ago

I think part of the problem is identifying which of those alternatives is closest to "exactly Debian, but without the hardware support problems". You really want something which tracks closely enough that bug reports against packages in that distro could be directly and intentionally accepted by Debian's tracker. The problem with accepting "Debian is not a friendly distro and that's fine" is that unlesss the snags are addressed, the number of reasons for people to run off to Pop and Ubuntu will only increase over time. Having a friendlier on-ramp to something that is actually Debian is good, but I suspect you could satisfy the "keep Debian pure" requirement with a fairly thin branding layer.

seba_dos1 5y ago
> I think part of the problem is identifying which of those alternatives is closest to "exactly Debian, but without the hardware support problems". That sounds like Debian's non-free ISO.
- regularfry 5y ago
  Yes, but it needs a different name to create a clear space between Debian's comparative purity and the ideologically messy practicalities of actually getting the hardware working. Technically there's little challenge, the hard work on that part has been done.