Debian Improves Docs To Inform Users Their Systems Might Not Work Without Non-Free Firmware

[lucrus]

Not to mention the text based installer is more than enough.

For you.

[stormcrow]

I really don't think Debian is doing anyone a service here. Not their potential users, nor FOSS in general. They're pushing away potential users by not packaging required items for hardware to function. Simply informing users they're doing that doesn't help when the next issue is their NIC (wireless or not) doesn't function so they can't download firmware for their NIC after being notified it's not FOSS and well... we can't do that because $reasons. Pissed me off when I've tried to go back to Debian for servers only to have to deal with Ethernet NICs sans firmware. That server runs FreeBSD now, with a happy smile on its case. The firmware for the NICs was already part of the OS. Thank you FreeBSD developers. Yes, I realize Ubuntu Server, Fedora, etc do the same thing. Same praise to them. Thank them for doing so and picking the user friendly path. I don't recommend Debian to people any more because of the unreasonably extreme firmware stance they take, and it's more likely to not to leave them with an unusable system. Not everyone has multiple computers, gotchas happen.

There's no technical, nor likely legal reason, that Debian can't just display the firmware license, let the user decide what they want to do, and download the blobs when told. No, they just dug in their heels like a 2 year old and stuffed their fingers in their ears and hummed real loud, or at least that's the equivalent of what happened last time I tried Debian last year.

[kpedersen]

As I said, worse case scenario, you still get a full UI with VESA mode.

Not to mention the text based installer is more than enough.

[leech]

In the long run, attempting to force users to use open source software by making closed source software harder to obtain actually does the opposite of what we want. People are less likely to jump into something when they can't get things they're familiar with, so removing all closed source software from the default repos leaves new users with software they've never heard of and have to research almost everything before using it.

Give users the chance to use open source software alongside closed source software, and they'll eventually start to realize the benefits of open source software.

Really, at this point, Debian has no excuse for existing in the way they do. They need to wake the fuck up and realize that they need to become about 100% more user friendly to be anywhere near relevant again. As of now, literally all Debian is good for is a base for building Ubuntu. Debian isn't more stable than Ubuntu for any use case that 99.9% of users will run into. Debian has next to no 3rd party repos for getting updated software. Debian is a pain in the ass to install closed source software on compared to Ubuntu. There's legitimately no reason to use Debian over Ubuntu or an official Ubuntu flavor unless you have irrational hatred for Canonical.

Everything in this comment is incorrect. It's easy to install anything in Debian. Flatpak is available if you wish for third party stuff. The built in repos cover almost everything and installing the non-free drivers usually just consist of enabling the non-free and contrib repos. Which you can do all via UI. Still more stable with Sid than it is with Ubuntu in my experience. I've ran Debian for decades, there isn't anything wrong with how they're doing things. You may as well whine that Arch Linux is too hard to install. People who like Debian like Debian. It still has a much more robust installer than Ubuntu and their based Distributions... I had to use Debian's installer to set up the disk for my laptop because Pop_OS doesn't support any sort of raid set up! And I use Pop_OS there instead of Debian because it simply has the best Optimus support I've seen in any distribution.

[leech]

Isn't GPU firmware comparable to the hardware itself? They both aren't free, but neither one calls into the kernel nor user space programs as they simply provide a blackbox, be it soldered or flashed... there's little difference.

I don't understand the Debian team choice to be so radical about GPU firmware: what's the point of leaving users without a working display when they are already using at least two other non-free firmwares just to boot up their PC (CPU firmware and the BIOS)? Granted, those two are already flashed at Debian install time and Debian does not need to ship those two, so Debian is not responsible for those two, but being an asshole to your users doesn't make users more aware of anything. At best, it makes them more upset. At worst, it makes them go back to Windows (or, even worse in this regard, Ubuntu...).

I haven't read the other comments, but I can tell you right now that Debian installs come up with a display as the generic vesa one will work even if nothing else will. It may be slow and crappy, but it'll work. I don't understand this article, as Debian has always had a thing in their installer that says 'This device won't work without firmware' at least for devices like wireless cards, as some of them won't work at all without their firmware blobs. GPUs are usually fine and only certain features are gimped without it. As I said, worse case scenario, you still get a full UI with VESA mode.

[CommunityMember]

where do you draw the line?

The line drawn was somewhat pragmatic at the time of the "edict", in that if you could not use devices which had any embedded firmware at all you would still be programming on turing tape.

However, it is important to understand that the FSF is advocating an idea, and has no interest in accepting pragmatism or compromise. You are either a true believer (and are not using any modern system), or are part of the problem. Real people and companies (including the FSF itself) use real systems (both directly, and indirectly) that do not meet the ideals they espouse.

[Syretia]

In the long run, attempting to force users to use open source software by making closed source software harder to obtain actually does the opposite of what we want. People are less likely to jump into something when they can't get things they're familiar with, so removing all closed source software from the default repos leaves new users with software they've never heard of and have to research almost everything before using it.

Give users the chance to use open source software alongside closed source software, and they'll eventually start to realize the benefits of open source software.

Really, at this point, Debian has no excuse for existing in the way they do. They need to wake the fuck up and realize that they need to become about 100% more user friendly to be anywhere near relevant again. As of now, literally all Debian is good for is a base for building Ubuntu. Debian isn't more stable than Ubuntu for any use case that 99.9% of users will run into. Debian has next to no 3rd party repos for getting updated software. Debian is a pain in the ass to install closed source software on compared to Ubuntu. There's legitimately no reason to use Debian over Ubuntu or an official Ubuntu flavor unless you have irrational hatred for Canonical.

[jabl]

I'm sure it traces back to Stallman's decision that, if it's burned into the hardware and non-upgradeable, then it's to be considered equivalent to an ASIC. If it's replaceable, then it's to be considered software and FLOSS principles apply.

Yes, but IMHO it's a nonsensical position. It might have made sense 40 years ago, when many peripherals didn't need firmware. Today, however, in practice all HW requires firmware. So you have broadly three different ways of handling the firmware:

• The firmware is burned into ROM on the device and can't be updated by the user. So if an update is required the user needs to either live with whatever faults the original firmware had, or return the device and get a new one. And of course, for a returned device, the vendor might be able to desolder the ROM chip and replace it with a new one with the newer firmware and resell it. Or maybe it's really flash, but only the vendor has the tools to flash the firmware. This all is apparently fine by the FSF.
• The firmware is stored on flash on the device and can be updated by the user. This is apparently BAD according to the FSF, Boo Hiss!
• The firmware is stored on disk, and is loaded to the device by the device driver as part of initializing the device. Also very BAD and makes hair grow out of your palms.

Now, if you take the position that all these are roughly equivalent from a freedom perspective, where do you draw the line? What constitutes "Freedom-compatible hardware"? Should the firmware be GPL-compatible? Should the VHDL/Verilog of the ASIC's themselves be open? What about the PnR data and layouts for whatever foundry the vendor happens to be using? Turtles all the way down?

[billyswong]

Isn't GPU firmware comparable to the hardware itself? They both aren't free, but neither one calls into the kernel nor user space programs as they simply provide a blackbox, be it soldered or flashed... there's little difference.

I don't understand the Debian team choice to be so radical about GPU firmware: what's the point of leaving users without a working display when they are already using at least two other non-free firmwares just to boot up their PC (CPU firmware and the BIOS)? Granted, those two are already flashed at Debian install time and Debian does not need to ship those two, so Debian is not responsible for those two, but being an asshole to your users doesn't make users more aware of anything. At best, it makes them more upset. At worst, it makes them go back to Windows (or, even worse in this regard, Ubuntu...).

It's Debian's choice. Nobody force others to use Debian (instead of for example Ubuntu).

GPU firmware is not hardware. In theory one can plant virus / backdoor into firmware after the hardware is purchased and switched on. Well, in some sense those "security" module that prevent people from recording Netflix stream from their own PC screen is a kind of backdoor already.

[kpedersen]

Like it or not there are many cases where the hardware without OS loaded firmware files is basically a brick.

I strongly disagree that this is an issue by not including them in the media or default install. Memory stick, CDROM, floppy disk, RS232. C'mon you can get a firmware package on the OS in many ways. It doesn't and shouldn't need to come with the installation. I would not put an unprepped server on an internal network either. As mentioned, it is not deterministic.

OpenBSD I tend to have to do the Raspberry Pi install headless via UART / serial. The bcm firmware files can also be transferred via that same medium. This works exceptionally well since almost every different ARM board needs very different firmware. It would be a mess to include them all in the default OS.

The official installer should be a complete package that gives you all options and does its best effort of running everywhere. No one has a clue or gives a damn what components will need a firmware blob, and does enjoy having to fix that crap with a textmode console (or worse).

And Ubuntu has you covered. Why not use that rather than Debian if firmware is giving you such trouble. Especially when a textmode console is pretty much as far as I would need for my Debian servers anyway.

Please note you wrote that. .

Yeah notice the quotes around right. Doing right by those kinds of users is very different than doing the correct thing.