10 ms·

I was involved in the discussion, and I'm also torn on that issue, but at least you can disable installation of non-free firmware and install Debian without any

I was involved in the discussion, and I'm also torn on that issue, but at least you can disable installation of non-free firmware and install Debian without any non-free software. On the other hand, firmware is a convoluted issue. It was always present, but became increasingly visible over the years. While I'm a strong Free Software supporter, firmware is one of the hardest parts to convert, because of the IP it entails and trade secrets it embodies.

jacquesm 3y ago
That and the simple fact that without it the hardware you've invested in won't work. So this is very much an individual choice, if you don't have such hardware you are fine but shouldn't be voting on whether or not someone who does have hardware that won't work without proprietary blobs has to go out to buy new gear. There are all kinds of considerations that go in to this decision (for instance: environmental impact) and I'm all for compromise when it helps out others. At the same time, you have a good point, these decisions are difficult and need to be very carefully weighted. Debian and RedHat are the two distributions that everybody else always ends up following so a major departure from established policy there has potentially huge impact downstream.
- enriquto 3y ago
  > the simple fact that without it the hardware you've invested in won't work How is that different from the "if you want to run linux don't buy a winmodem" that we said convincingly twenty years ago ? Would you have approved that linux 2.0 added binary blobs to the kernel in order to correctly work with the hardware that you had invested in (some random winmodem) ?
  - boricj 3y ago
    Usually, people first buy a computer and then hear about Linux later, not the other way around.
    - 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
      It's also close to impossible to choose fully Linux-compatible hardware for some of us. Whatever decent Thinkpads there are left are practically unavailable in my country, unless you're willing to buy from foreign sellers without any warranty and pay hundreds of dollars for shipping. Things like Framework are completely unavailable and probably will be for the foreseeable future. I use desktops exclusively so I can pick and choose, but I am in the minority of a minority.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Winmodems had plenty of alternatives, for PCs the choice is usually limited to 'what you were given' or 'what you recycled from a dumpster'. Linux is typically not the first OS to be installed on any given piece of hardware (even if brand new plenty of people pay either the MS or the Apple tax). And because those are exactly the people that benefit from having a working PC I'm all for maximizing their chances. Choice is a luxury.
    - Karellen 3y ago
      > Linux is typically not the first OS to be installed on any given piece of hardware. And because those are exactly the people that benefit from having a working PC I'm all for maximizing their chances. Choice is a luxury. But they don't have to choose Debian. If Debian had maintained a strict "Free" stance, people could still use their troublesome hardware out-of-the-box simply by picking another distro that did include non-Free firmware in the installer. There are plenty of them. Like, 99% of all other distros. Not all distros have to be everything to everyone. It's OK to have a niche.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Fortunately Debian recognized that being a 'niche' would sooner or later spell the end of Debian and that would be a loss.
      - bayindirh 3y ago
        When you are one of the biggest “root” distributions, and the template of countless big and small time derivatives, you don’t have the luxury to have niche. When thought with a clear and unbiased mind, Debian did the absolute best they can do. Add firmware, be open about it, install only when necessary, allow people to opt out when they know what they are doing.
      - realitythreek 3y ago
        > If Debian had maintained a strict "Free" stance, people could still use their troublesome hardware out-of-the-box simply by picking another distro that did include non-Free firmware in the installer. This isn’t Debian’s niche though. Like many distros, Debian came with the free repos configured by default, but its had non-free packages available forever and they already had a non-free installation iso hidden away. The line had been crossed forever ago. Now it’s just a friendlier experience. This is a good thing.
  - nunesvn 3y ago
    We’re on the laptop age, most people can’t pick and choose the components of their computers.
arp242 3y ago
As I understand it "firmware" is essentially just the same as an EEPROM, except that using volatile memory is cheaper and easier to upgrade. No one seems to have great issues with EEPROMs (FSF doesn't anyway), but uploading that same code to the device when it starts is a huge problem? I never understood this, and especially given the huge practical trade-offs the entire thing seems fighting windmills. The Linux-libre people even removed the warning that the CPU is vulnerable to spectre/meltdown if you don't update the microcode. But ... your CPU already comes with that microcode out of the factory, just a different version of it. How is running an older known to be buggy microcode better?
- jasomill 3y ago
  Debian distributes firmware stored in volatile RAM because it is either required to use the hardware, or, as is the case for CPU microcode updates, highly recommended for most users. As far as I know, Debian does not distribute proprietary EEPROM firmware updates at all, as these are generally not required to use the hardware (and, depending on the device and update in question, may or may not be recommended for most users). In other words, the difference is practical, not ideological.
  - arp242 3y ago
    Organisations like the FSF recommend that you don't use devices that require "non-free firmware" at all. They don't recommend anything like this for devices with "non-free EEPROMs at all". Stallman himself has stated he has no problem with such devices (I can't find a direct quote on this right now, but I'm 100% sure I've seen Stallman write or say this at time point). My point was that the entire position just doesn't make any sense: either you reject all non-free software no matter how it's loaded (which means there are very few computers you can actually use), or you just use your hardware with "non-free firmware" that would be baked in anyway and stop worrying about the entire thing.
  - pabs3 3y ago
    Debian distributes fwupd, which accesses the Linux Vendor Firmware Service, which distributes updates for proprietary firmware stored on devices: https://fwupd.org/ https://fwupd.org/ https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware/Updates https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware/Updates
blihp 3y ago
While I'm glad to see proprietary firmware both included and segregated in its own repo, I'm wondering why RISC-V wasn't added as a supported architecture in Debian 12? It seems like that supporting at least an open ISA would move closer to the possibility of what Debian wants to see happen... so why isn't it as a distro helping to make it happen?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- teddyh 3y ago
  https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V
  - blihp 3y ago
    That doesn't answer the question. It's still 'unofficial' per https://wiki.debian.org/SupportedArchitectures https://wiki.debian.org/SupportedArchitectures If you want the maintain the status quo you support the hardware that has the most users, if you want to change it you also support the hardware you want them to use.
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      In Debian, there's no single entity which decides on things. There are rules, and processes. The relevant documentation is here: https://wiki.debian.org/PortsDocs/New https://wiki.debian.org/PortsDocs/New Also, the rules for becoming an official port is here: https://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html https://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html When RISC-V satisfies the relevant criteria, they can become official. Also, maintaining a port is tremendous amount of work. Debian users only see the tip of the iceberg. There's so much beneath that.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      Who is the actor in this scenario who wants to change the status quo and therefore support the RISC-V platform in Debian? I.e. who are the people with the motivation to do that?
mikae1 3y ago
> you can disable installation of non-free firmware and install Debian without any non-free software. Including but making it optional was an excellent decision. Those who need will get what they want, those who don't will have the same result as with Bullseye.

jacquesm 3y ago

That and the simple fact that without it the hardware you've invested in won't work. So this is very much an individual choice, if you don't have such hardware you are fine but shouldn't be voting on whether or not someone who does have hardware that won't work without proprietary blobs has to go out to buy new gear. There are all kinds of considerations that go in to this decision (for instance: environmental impact) and I'm all for compromise when it helps out others. At the same time, you have a good point, these decisions are difficult and need to be very carefully weighted. Debian and RedHat are the two distributions that everybody else always ends up following so a major departure from established policy there has potentially huge impact downstream.

enriquto 3y ago
> the simple fact that without it the hardware you've invested in won't work How is that different from the "if you want to run linux don't buy a winmodem" that we said convincingly twenty years ago ? Would you have approved that linux 2.0 added binary blobs to the kernel in order to correctly work with the hardware that you had invested in (some random winmodem) ?
- boricj 3y ago
  Usually, people first buy a computer and then hear about Linux later, not the other way around.
  - 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
    It's also close to impossible to choose fully Linux-compatible hardware for some of us. Whatever decent Thinkpads there are left are practically unavailable in my country, unless you're willing to buy from foreign sellers without any warranty and pay hundreds of dollars for shipping. Things like Framework are completely unavailable and probably will be for the foreseeable future. I use desktops exclusively so I can pick and choose, but I am in the minority of a minority.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Winmodems had plenty of alternatives, for PCs the choice is usually limited to 'what you were given' or 'what you recycled from a dumpster'. Linux is typically not the first OS to be installed on any given piece of hardware (even if brand new plenty of people pay either the MS or the Apple tax). And because those are exactly the people that benefit from having a working PC I'm all for maximizing their chances. Choice is a luxury.
  - Karellen 3y ago
    > Linux is typically not the first OS to be installed on any given piece of hardware. And because those are exactly the people that benefit from having a working PC I'm all for maximizing their chances. Choice is a luxury. But they don't have to choose Debian. If Debian had maintained a strict "Free" stance, people could still use their troublesome hardware out-of-the-box simply by picking another distro that did include non-Free firmware in the installer. There are plenty of them. Like, 99% of all other distros. Not all distros have to be everything to everyone. It's OK to have a niche.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Fortunately Debian recognized that being a 'niche' would sooner or later spell the end of Debian and that would be a loss.
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      When you are one of the biggest “root” distributions, and the template of countless big and small time derivatives, you don’t have the luxury to have niche. When thought with a clear and unbiased mind, Debian did the absolute best they can do. Add firmware, be open about it, install only when necessary, allow people to opt out when they know what they are doing.
    - realitythreek 3y ago
      > If Debian had maintained a strict "Free" stance, people could still use their troublesome hardware out-of-the-box simply by picking another distro that did include non-Free firmware in the installer. This isn’t Debian’s niche though. Like many distros, Debian came with the free repos configured by default, but its had non-free packages available forever and they already had a non-free installation iso hidden away. The line had been crossed forever ago. Now it’s just a friendlier experience. This is a good thing.
- nunesvn 3y ago
  We’re on the laptop age, most people can’t pick and choose the components of their computers.

arp242 3y ago

As I understand it "firmware" is essentially just the same as an EEPROM, except that using volatile memory is cheaper and easier to upgrade. No one seems to have great issues with EEPROMs (FSF doesn't anyway), but uploading that same code to the device when it starts is a huge problem? I never understood this, and especially given the huge practical trade-offs the entire thing seems fighting windmills. The Linux-libre people even removed the warning that the CPU is vulnerable to spectre/meltdown if you don't update the microcode. But ... your CPU already comes with that microcode out of the factory, just a different version of it. How is running an older known to be buggy microcode better?

jasomill 3y ago
Debian distributes firmware stored in volatile RAM because it is either required to use the hardware, or, as is the case for CPU microcode updates, highly recommended for most users. As far as I know, Debian does not distribute proprietary EEPROM firmware updates at all, as these are generally not required to use the hardware (and, depending on the device and update in question, may or may not be recommended for most users). In other words, the difference is practical, not ideological.
- arp242 3y ago
  Organisations like the FSF recommend that you don't use devices that require "non-free firmware" at all. They don't recommend anything like this for devices with "non-free EEPROMs at all". Stallman himself has stated he has no problem with such devices (I can't find a direct quote on this right now, but I'm 100% sure I've seen Stallman write or say this at time point). My point was that the entire position just doesn't make any sense: either you reject all non-free software no matter how it's loaded (which means there are very few computers you can actually use), or you just use your hardware with "non-free firmware" that would be baked in anyway and stop worrying about the entire thing.
- pabs3 3y ago
  Debian distributes fwupd, which accesses the Linux Vendor Firmware Service, which distributes updates for proprietary firmware stored on devices: https://fwupd.org/ https://fwupd.org/ https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware/Updates https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware/Updates

blihp 3y ago

While I'm glad to see proprietary firmware both included and segregated in its own repo, I'm wondering why RISC-V wasn't added as a supported architecture in Debian 12? It seems like that supporting at least an open ISA would move closer to the possibility of what Debian wants to see happen... so why isn't it as a distro helping to make it happen?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
teddyh 3y ago
https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V
- blihp 3y ago
  That doesn't answer the question. It's still 'unofficial' per https://wiki.debian.org/SupportedArchitectures https://wiki.debian.org/SupportedArchitectures If you want the maintain the status quo you support the hardware that has the most users, if you want to change it you also support the hardware you want them to use.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    In Debian, there's no single entity which decides on things. There are rules, and processes. The relevant documentation is here: https://wiki.debian.org/PortsDocs/New https://wiki.debian.org/PortsDocs/New Also, the rules for becoming an official port is here: https://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html https://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html When RISC-V satisfies the relevant criteria, they can become official. Also, maintaining a port is tremendous amount of work. Debian users only see the tip of the iceberg. There's so much beneath that.
  - teddyh 3y ago
    Who is the actor in this scenario who wants to change the status quo and therefore support the RISC-V platform in Debian? I.e. who are the people with the motivation to do that?

mikae1 3y ago

> you can disable installation of non-free firmware and install Debian without any non-free software. Including but making it optional was an excellent decision. Those who need will get what they want, those who don't will have the same result as with Bullseye.