|
From: | Bob Ham |
Subject: | Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Any folks in Manchester interested in participating in an Ubuntu Global Jam event if I were to organise one? |
Date: | Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:24:17 +0000 |
User-agent: | Roundcube Webmail/0.7.1 |
On 2013-02-20 14:15, MJ Ray wrote:
Bob Ham <address@hidden>On 2013-02-20 01:46, MJ Ray wrote:
If an installer does not offer the possibility of installing somenon-free firmware, is it "concealing" that non-free firmware from theuser? Or is it respecting the user's desire to not be offered an invitation to the choking world of proprietary software?Nice straw man. Debian's installer has to have a firmware loader anyway (some firmware is free software) and so any fully-working installer must "offer the possibility" else it would not be free software.
This is a misunderstanding. There's some poor wording on my part; the word "option" would have been better than "possibility". Let me rephrase:
If an installer does not offer to install some non-free firmware, is it "concealing" that non-free firmware from the user? Or is it respecting the user's desire to not be offered an invitation to the choking world of proprietary software?
So what does trisquel do if there is non-free-firmware-only hardware present? Just silently pretend it doesn't exist and waste the users' time as they try to debug the apparently non-detected device, instead of warning them it's not useful in the sunny world of free software?
In this situation I would expect Trisquel to do the same thing that Debian does when there is hardware present for which the kernel has no driver: silently pretend it doesn't exist and waste the users' time as they try to debug the apparently non-detected device, instead of warning them it's not useful in the slightly overcast world of Debian.
-- Bob Ham <address@hidden> for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |