Re: Documentation of what is appropriate for #guix?

[Paul Jewell]

> On 21 Feb 2022, at 19:10, raingloom <raingloom@riseup.net> 

> By the way, I think it's kind of silly that that is completely banned
> from discussion. When I wanted help on getting my GPU to work, I
> mentioned for reference purposes that I tried the proprietary driver
> from The Forbidden Channel - and was subsequently warned that I must
> not do that.

I understand that the position taken by guix is more nuanced than that. The 
project doesn’t seek to control what you run on your computer, but won’t 
support your choice to run non-free software in the official channels. 

> Which I find ridiculous. You can't even discuss results
> obtained by running closed source drivers and firmware, so how do you
> debug the libre firmwares and drivers, when you have nothing to compare
> against?
But you can discuss these results elsewhere.

> Also, I think people who want to overwhelmingly use free software but
> need proprietary drivers for their computer to function should be
> offered better help than "buy a new computer".

I kind of agree with you here. I don’t want to obsolete perfectly viable 
hardware, but instead want to use it for its whole life. Next time I am in the 
market for new hardware, then I will have the ability to run libre-software as 
a pre-condition for purchase.

> I think The Forbidden Channel should be raised to a status similar to
> the AUR: it's recognized and its existence is documented, but all
> responsibility is very explicitly disclaimed and support is relegated
> to special channels.

Users will find it even the way it is configured today. I don’t think it needs 
any sort of official recognition or promotion, as that will go against the 
project goals/rules (as I understand it). We should always be aware of the 
insidious nature of proprietary firmware/software, and work to eliminate the 
need for it, rather than indicating that its use is acceptable as a first 
choice.


Best regards,
Paul