Debian's policy change on non-free-firmware has made much of the Debian.org website very misleading, and some Debian OS installers have become very Free Software UNfriendly and deceptive. The following is my experience, and the reasons why I believe
Debian must re-word their promotional web pages, and update all their installers to respect user choice regarding installation of non-free-firmware or not:

I'm a 10+ year Debian user, and a longtime Free Software supporter. Two weeks ago I was shocked to discover 29 non-free components in the Debian desktop I'd been using for the last couple months. There hadn't been any opt-in or even a notice about Debian'
s major policy change during the installation process (I use the Debian installer via the Live images), so I was completely unaware.

In my initial attempts to figure out what was going on, I also didn't find any prominent announcement of the major policy change on Debian.org's homepage. Moreover, the "Our Philosophy" and "Why Debian" homepage links still give the impression that
Debian is Free-Software-Friendly. That's extremely misleading now (automatically installing 29 non-free components with neither permission nor warning is not Free Software friendly).

If Debian is going to continue promoting itself with those "Our Philosophy" and "Why Debian" pages, there should at least be opt-ins during the installation process of every Debian download, as well as prominent warnings of the new policy on the download
pages. Until that's done, the "Our Philosophy" and "Why Debian" pages (and perhaps others) should be re-worded so as to not be so misleading.

I was disappointed to eventually read of Debian's "vote" on non-free-firmware. Though I do understand the desire to make Debian more friendly to new users, doing so by misleading and alienating many existing users doesn't make a lot of sense IMO:

After reading of this change, I then spent the next week trying to figure out how to re-install Debian without the non-free firmware. That's when I discovered that Debian has suddenly become very Free-Software-UNfriendly. Even when I used the "firmware=
never" method on the Debian installer (Live image dvd), the 29 non-free components were still installed! Without warning. That "firmware=never" method is what Debian.org itself is recommending (on a rather deep link sadly), but it doesn't even work!

So I eventually abandoned that longtime favorite method of installing my preferred desktop, and switched to the NON-Live DVD installation... But then discovered that using "firmware=never" method there also blocks FREE-firmware that used to get installed.
So now my Wifi adapter didn't work, whereas it always worked with Debian 11/Bullseye and earlier installations.

Ultimately it took me about a week, and about a dozen Debian Bookworm re-installations, and even hiring a developer, to get an installation via DVD that was similar to what was previously installed by default. I've provided some tips below to others who
are struggling. However, Debian needs to change all it's installers to provide "opt-in" for anything non-free. Even if that "opt-in" is checked by default, it should be easy to opt-out. Debian's current leadership may have lost sight of their own "Why
Debian" and "Our Philosophy" and "Who we are and what we do" claims, but Free Software philosophy is still important to many people. Actually, it's still important, period. But whether the current leader/"voters" agree or understand or not, there should
be choice for users.

Until the installers are updated, the Debian.org homepage and "Why Debian" and "Our Philosophy" and download pages should all be changed. Keeping them as they are is worse than misleading IMO (false advertising? bait-and-switch? negligent?). While an
attorney could be consulted, why not just be responsible, and honest, and inclusive, by adding simple opt-in/out options on all Debian's installers?

Until the Debian installers are fixed, hopefully the tips below help some Free Software supporters who wish to continue using Debian. Note that I'm not a developer, so there may be mistakes in these instructions. If you find any mistakes, or have
suggestions for improvement on these instructions, please post your suggestions in a reply:

1) Above all, avoid Debian 12 Bookworm's "Live image" installations. Those will install non-free firmware on your system no matter what you do. Even when I followed Debian.org's instructions for adding "firmware=never" before installing the OS, I still
ended up with 29 non-free components on my system. That's exactly the same number as without "firmware=never", which means this method of blocking non-free-firmware doesn't work with Debian's live images. Therefore, avoid Debian Bookworm's live images
completely.

2) If you're a technical person and want to support Free Software, you could install from Debian 12's "NON-Live" DVD. Adding "firmware=never" before installing with that DVD will block non-free-firmware (How to do that: on the DVD's opening "Boot Menu",
scroll to "Start Installer" or "Graphical Install", hit Tab, and enter "firmware=never" to that line. I'm not sure if position matters, but I added it just before the "---" and that worked). UNFORTUNATELY, this method also blocks some FREE-firmware that
Debian 11/Bulleye's Live image would have installed. Because of that, my WiFi adapter didn't work after installing Debian 12/Bookworm using this method, whereas my Wifi always worked immediately after installing Debian 11 with purely free firmware.

3) If you're a non-technical (casual) Debian user who wishes to support Free Software, you could revert to Debian 11's "Live DVD". While Debian 11's Live image DVD may also ignore "firmware=never", Debian 11 doesn't include non-free-firmware in the first
place, so it doesn't matter that "firmware=never" get ignored. On the other hand, what was great about Debian 11's Live DVD installer is that it always recognized what free firmware my WiFi adapter needed, and installed it automatically. Therefore, my
WiFi adapter (and everything else on my system) works immediately after installing Debian 11 with its 100% free firmware. That's longer the case with Debian 12/Bookworm.

4) Advanced: If you want a Debian DVD that installs the free-firmware, but not the non-free-firmware (ie. a Debian 12 DVD that installs the way Debian 11 did): You can use the program ISOMaster (FOSS in "main" Debian repository) to remove the folders /
dists/bookwork/non-free-firmware/, /dists/bookwork/contrib/, /pool/non-free-firmware/, /pool/contrib/, as well as everything non-free in /firmware/. Unfortunately, that's a rather time consuming and tedious process. It would be easy for Debian to provide
such an image for everyone, but it's challenging for casual Free Software supporters to perform individually. Also, this only works on Debian's non-Live images. To remove non-free-components from the the Live images, I believe would require modifying the
squashfs file, which was beyond my abilities. Perhaps someone could post how to do that?

As a casual Debian user, it took me a week to figure this all out. The conclusion is that Debian 12/Bookworm is much, much less friendly for Free Software supporters than Debian 11/Bullseye was. The stuff about "Our Philosophy" and "Why Debian" and "Who
We Are" on the Debian.org homepage is now very misleading IMO. There's not even a warning during Debian Bookworm's live image installation to warn people about this major change to Debian! Even worse, the hard-to-find instructions being provided by
Debian.org for how to block non-free-firmware don't even work for the Live image installs. In either case (whether a user is aware of Debian's policy change and "firmware=never" instructions, or not), people who think they're avoiding non-free-firmware
are actually getting non-free-firmware.

While I'm glad to have discovered workarounds to continue using Debian while also supporting Free Software, it was challenging, and I'm very disappointed to see how unimportant Free Software principles (on which Debian was built) are to Debian's current
leadership. Supporting Free Software shouldn't require being a developer, nor hiring a developer, but Debian 12 took me a week to figure out. Debian 11 and previous releases were always super easy.

Again, it really doesn't make sense to try to make Debian accessible to more users by taking away what made it appealing to many of its existing users. That's trying to make Debian more popular by taking away what makes it special. It wouldn't be hard
for Debian leadership to provide more Free-Software-Friendly installers. Individual users shouldn't have to go through what I went through (a week!).

I really hope something changes. In the meantime, I'm personally reverting to Debian 11 since it still has a few years of support. I am aware of PureOS, but the Debian community is still so great, and with 10+ years of Debian-devotion/love at this point,
I'll stick with the workarounds for as long as I can.

By the way, for anyone who values Free Software principles, going forward it seems like a good idea to always check your Debian installations for non-free components immediately after installation. To do that:
a) as root, update your /etc/apt/sources.list and remove any non-free or contrib entries.
b) do: sudo apt-get update
c) install the FOSS application "apt-show-versions" by doing: apt-get install apt-show-versions
d) do this command: sudo apt-show-versions | grep "No available version in archive"
If nothing is listed, you're good. If something is listed, those are non-free, which means something wasn't done correctly during your installation. Some people may suggest just uninstalling those non-free components, but because those components are
closed-source (aka. non-free(dom)), there's no way to know for sure what they've already done in your system now that you've booted up. Therefore, if anything is listed, my opinion is that it's best to re-install Debian.

Ironically, Debian 12 was the first time I ever experienced instability on Debian (my Wifi was breaking every couple hours). I have no way of knowing if it was the non-free-firmware causing a conflict, but my guess is yes because there was a conflicting
non-free-firmware package. And now that I'm back to Debian 11, all is stable again.

Links referenced:
• Debian 12 Live install images to AVOID: https://www.debian.org/CD/live/
• Better option for Debian 12, where "firmware=never" works, and where you'll still be able to select your preferred desktop, but you may need to manually add free firmware after installation, which is annoying: https://www.debian.org/CD/
• Best option as of April 2024 in my opinion is to revert to Debian 11's Live install images: https://cdimage.debian.org/mirror/cdimage/archive/11.9.0-live/
• Instructions being provided by Debian.org (see section 2.2) that don't work with Live images, which is very misleading IMO: https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21 Apr 2024 11:31 -0700, from reidbox@proinbox.com (Reid):

I'm a 10+ year Debian user, and a longtime Free Software supporter.
Two weeks ago I was shocked to discover 29 non-free components in
the Debian desktop I'd been using for the last couple months. There
hadn't been any opt-in or even a notice about Debian's major policy
change during the installation process (I use the Debian installer
via the Live images), so I was completely unaware.

In my initial attempts to figure out what was going on, I also
didn't find any prominent announcement of the major policy change on Debian.org's homepage. Moreover, the "Our Philosophy" and "Why
Debian" homepage links still give the impression that Debian is Free-Software-Friendly. That's extremely misleading now
(automatically installing 29 non-free components with neither
permission nor warning is not Free Software friendly).

Did you look through the installation guide, reading which before
installing Debian is _highly recommended_?

Out of Bookworm's installation guide:

Section 2.2 "Devices Requiring Firmware" specifically discusses that
non-free firmware, which previously was in non-free, has been moved to
the non-free-firmware component instead. https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/ch02s02.en.html

(That also links to the full vote record.)

Section 6.4.2 "Firmware and the Installed System" also discusses this,
and specifically mentions that the non-free-firmware section may be
added to the installed system's apt configuration. https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/ch06s04.en.html#idm2657

Note that this is _essentially unchanged_ from Bullseye, which would
add the much broader non-free component under the same circumstances. https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/ch06s04.en.html#idm2844

Similarly for an upgrade, it is also _highly recommended_ to read
through the release notes for the version you're upgrading to.

The release notes for Bookworm discusses the addition of the
non-free-firmware component in at least three places (2.2, 4.2.8 and 5.1.1): https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.en.html#archive-areas
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#non-free-firmware
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#non-free-split

The Bookworm release announcement also discusses the introduction of
the non-free-firmware component: https://www.debian.org/News/2023/20230610

_That_, in turn, is linked to from the Bookworm release page (see the
first paragraph, which still discusses the initial Debian 12.0 release alongside that 12.5 is the current Bookworm release):

https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/

I'm honestly not sure how much more prominently the information on the non-free-firmware component reasonably _can_ be published.

As for live media, perhaps it could be spelled out more explicitly;
but the fact that live media is primarily for trying out Debian and
only secondary for installation should be a fairly strong hint that
the more advanced installation procedures, such as passing parameters
to the installer on the kernel command line, _might_ not work the same
as with dedicated installation media such as the netinst image linked
to from the web site front page. The live media download page that one
can click through to ("other downloads" -> "try Debian live before
installing") also mentions that it contains the Calamares Installer
"as alternative to" Debian-Installer, whereas the installation guide
speaks _specifically_ of debian-installer in the context of firmware
lookup during installation; another suggestion (which, yes, could
perhaps be made more explicit) that there might be differences. If you
have a concrete suggestion for how this could be made clearer, I
suspect that the Debian Installer and Debian Webmaster teams would
appreciate suggestions.

--
Michael Kjörling 🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se “Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy", and "Who We Are / What We Do" pages are
currently promoting Debian as.

That's not right. Period. If the Installers are not ALL going to give users the choice to opt-in or opt-out of non-free components, then those above-mentioned promotional pages really need to be updated so as to not be misleading users.

But BETTER yet, why not just update all the installers to give users that choice? That's what I'm strongly suggesting. Something very wrong/misleading/deceptive is happening right now.

Regarding "perhaps it could be spelled out more explicitly... that live media is primarily for trying out Debian": Using those live image Debian installers has been very convenient up through Bullseye because they automatically installed a preferred
Desktop. But if those installers are now also going install 29 non-free packages without clear warning and without opt-in/out choices (as they currently are), then there should be a GIANT RED WARNING on the live-image download page of that fact. All
those live images also contain installers, and it's unreasonable to expect that people who are trying Debian out would not later use the built-in installer if they like what they've tried. But at the moment, it they do use those installers, what they're
getting is not what's been promoted on Debian homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy" and "Who We Are / What We Do" pages.

This is about Doing what's right and/or Telling the truth. Best would be both. But what's currently happening is neither.

P.S. Regarding your link to https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/ch02s02.en.html , those instructions don't even work on the live images. Worse, they don't say that they don't work on the live images. So even if a user reads that entire guide,
they'll only get instructions that don't even work. That's deceptive.

This is in reply to: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00325.html

Original post: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

If Debian is going to continue promoting itself with those "Our Philosophy" and "Why Debian" pages, there should at least be opt-ins during the installation process of every Debian download, as well as prominent warnings of the new policy on the download pages.

Agreed. It should be easy to adjust the installation process with an
extra step whether to include/install non-free-firmware or not.
It's also an opportunity to raise awareness of the problem.


Stefan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024, Stefan Monnier wrote:

If Debian is going to continue promoting itself with those "Our Philosophy" >> and "Why Debian" pages, there should at least be opt-ins during the
installation process of every Debian download, as well as prominent warnings >> of the new policy on the download pages.

Agreed. It should be easy to adjust the installation process with an
extra step whether to include/install non-free-firmware or not.
It's also an opportunity to raise awareness of the problem.

do you think the debian gods are listening

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact?

Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html


----- Original message -----
From: fxkl47BF@protonmail.com
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 3:52 PM

do you think the debian gods are listening


On Sun, 21 Apr 2024, Stefan Monnier wrote:

If Debian is going to continue promoting itself with those "Our Philosophy" >> and "Why Debian" pages, there should at least be opt-ins during the
installation process of every Debian download, as well as prominent warnings >> of the new policy on the download pages.

Agreed. It should be easy to adjust the installation process with an
extra step whether to include/install non-free-firmware or not.
It's also an opportunity to raise awareness of the problem.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact? Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html

Maybe `reportbug debian-installer`?


Stefan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun 21 Apr 2024 at 21:59:21 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote:

Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact? Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html

Maybe `reportbug debian-installer`?

but perhaps without all the deception crap, unless you really mean
to impugn the developers' motives.

Cheers,
David.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21 Apr 2024 13:58 -0700, from reidbox@proinbox.com (Reid):

You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX
pages of release notes and guides in order to learn that what
they're installing is not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian",
"Our Philosophy", and "Who We Are / What We Do" pages are currently
promoting Debian as.

That's not right. Period. If the Installers are not ALL going to
give users the choice to opt-in or opt-out of non-free components,
then those above-mentioned promotional pages really need to be
updated so as to not be misleading users.

I'm saying that _this hasn't changed_ between Bullseye and Bookworm.
Reading the release notes or the installation guide has been very
strongly recommended practice for a _very_ long time; and the
_documented_ behavior of the installer, except for the non-free / non-free-firmware split, is essentially unchanged in this regard.

Lambasting the Debian developers with a post on the Debian _users_
mailing list seems to me to be unlikely to lead to the improvements
which you clearly seek. Making a _reasoned_ bug report against the
appropriate package, _without_ including pages of hyperbole, seems
more likely to have a _constructive_ outcome for everyone involved.

But BETTER yet, why not just update all the installers to give users
that choice? That's what I'm strongly suggesting. Something very wrong/misleading/deceptive is happening right now.

If that's what you are suggesting, _I_ suggest to make a wishlist bug
report to that effect against the appropriate packages, which is how
such suggestions are made and tracked in Debian. Again, _without_
pages of hyperbole which can only serve to annoy and detract from the
point you seem to be trying to make. (Yes, I'm sure you feel
differently, but consider what is relevant for someone trying to
triage or fix an issue rather than your feelings about it.) If you're
able to also provide a proposed patch to that effect, then that's even
better.

I also suggest to please take a moment to read through the Debian Code
of Conduct <https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct>. May I suggest
paying particular attention to point 2 "assume good faith" and point 4
"try to be concise"? It's certainly fine to elaborate on the reasoning
behind the point you're making, but especially if you elaborate at
length (and I would certainly call ~1700 words "at length" in this
context), the specific point you're making should ideally be up front
so that people can quickly and easily tell what you're talking about
and whether that's relevant to them. Consider that a courtesy to the
some 3000 people on this list.

--
Michael Kjörling 🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se “Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun Apr 21, 2024 at 9:58 PM BST, Reid wrote:

If the Installers are not ALL going to give users the choice to opt-in
or opt-out of non-free components, then those above-mentioned
promotional pages really need to be updated so as to not be misleading
users.

I'm sure the Debian WWW team would be welcome of some help addressing
issues. The communication point for them is the debian-www[1] mailing
list, and there's a www.debian.org pseudo-package in the Debian BTS[2]
where bugs and patches can be filed.

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-www/
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?package=www.debian.org

But BETTER yet, why not just update all the installers to give users
that choice? That's what I'm strongly suggesting. Something very wrong/misleading/deceptive is happening right now.

Likewise, the installer team communicate with a dedicated list
debian-boot[3], and the installer(s) have their own BTS components:
one is debian-installer[4], but I'm not sure what the Live DVD is
covered by.

[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/
[4] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?package=debian-installer

The list you are posting on is a User list, so there's no guarantee that
the relevant Developers will see your messages.


Best wishes,

--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎ jmtd@debian.org
🔗 https://jmtd.net

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-04-21, Reid <reidbox@proinbox.com> wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy", and "Who We Are / What We Do" pages are

currently promoting Debian as.

How can you be taken seriously when you can't even wrap your lines
according to our venerable guidelines?

https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists

Set linewrap to 65-78 characters. 72 is a popular setting.

Get a popular setting going, buddy.

And, though it's true I extolled Proust recently, being succinct with well-wrapped lines is the height of mailing-list sophistication (unless
your Marcel, which you ain't).

Of course, it's also true these guidelines are never evoked with
anything approaching equanimity, so forget I even mentioned them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, Curt wrote:

On 2024-04-21, Reid <reidbox@proinbox.com> wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy", and "Who We Are / What We Do" pages

are currently promoting Debian as.

How can you be taken seriously when you can't even wrap your lines
according to our venerable guidelines?

https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists

Set linewrap to 65-78 characters. 72 is a popular setting.

Get a popular setting going, buddy.

And, though it's true I extolled Proust recently, being succinct with well-wrapped lines is the height of mailing-list sophistication (unless
your Marcel, which you ain't).

Of course, it's also true these guidelines are never evoked with
anything approaching equanimity, so forget I even mentioned them.

mentioned what

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-04-22, fxkl47BF@protonmail.com <fxkl47BF@protonmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, Curt wrote:

On 2024-04-21, Reid <reidbox@proinbox.com> wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy", and "Who We Are / What We Do" pages

are currently promoting Debian as.

How can you be taken seriously when you can't even wrap your lines
according to our venerable guidelines?

https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists

Set linewrap to 65-78 characters. 72 is a popular setting.

Get a popular setting going, buddy.

And, though it's true I extolled Proust recently, being succinct with
well-wrapped lines is the height of mailing-list sophistication (unless
your Marcel, which you ain't).

Of course, it's also true these guidelines are never evoked with
anything approaching equanimity, so forget I even mentioned them.

mentioned what

The Debian mailing list guidelines (for our less supple intellects).


--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

* On 2024 22 Apr 09:39 -0500, Curt wrote:

On 2024-04-21, Reid <reidbox@proinbox.com> wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy", and "Who We Are / What We Do" pages

are currently promoting Debian as.

How can you be taken seriously when you can't even wrap your lines
according to our venerable guidelines?

https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists

Set linewrap to 65-78 characters. 72 is a popular setting.

Looking at the OP's headers I see:

X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-379-gabd37849b7-fm-20240408.001-gabd37849

It appears our friend is using a Web browser and likely is presented
with a text box that looks all nice and neat with wrapping and all but
hits the list as one long line per paragraph.

Get a popular setting going, buddy.

Until he sets up a real MUA, I doubt the formatting will improve.

I endure this on many other mailing lists unrelated to Debian,
particularly from groups.io that have a Web interface.

- Nate

--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQSC1k9rDmfNQfaJu6b7LFEw1VqIGQUCZiaO1AAKCRD7LFEw1VqI GQkXAKC4COl6VZEpPIIZ6xOKQJXrtzw83QCdGC9LN423ujAnktGLOlDsbC6TQFQ=
=zWha
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-04-22, Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> wrote:

I endure this on many other mailing lists unrelated to Debian,
particularly from groups.io that have a Web interface.

It's a violation of Debian mailing list posting rules, guidelines, and
tips.

It irks me that in certain cases these guidelines are evoked with
a supercilious alacrity, and at other times not at all, leading me to
believe in the inherent bias of the rule-makers.



--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 11:31:03AM -0700, Reid wrote:

Debian's policy change on non-free-firmware has made much of the Debian.org website very misleading, and some Debian OS installers have become very
Free Software UNfriendly and deceptive. The following is my experience,
and the reasons why I believe Debian must re-word their promotional web pages, and update all their installers to respect user choice regarding installation of non-free-firmware or not:

I respect your experience. I think Debian made strenuous efforts to
make the change, to publicise it, to hold an open vote. It was covered
by a bunch of the tech press - it wasn't hidden in any way.

Others have pointed you to the resources on that.

I'm a 10+ year Debian user, and a longtime Free Software supporter. Two
weeks ago I was shocked to discover 29 non-free components in the Debian desktop I'd been using for the last couple months. There hadn't been any opt-in or even a notice about Debian's major policy change during the installation process (I use the Debian installer via the Live images),
so I was completely unaware.

That's probably a bug in Calamares. I checked with one of the live cd maintainers on this. As has been pointed out, the live cd is really
intended more for checking than for major use but it does need some work.
If you found the non-free components - where were they - under the /firmware directory?

In my initial attempts to figure out what was going on, I also didn't find any prominent announcement of the major policy change on Debian.org's homepage. Moreover, the "Our Philosophy" and "Why Debian" homepage links still give the impression that Debian is Free-Software-Friendly. That's extremely misleading now (automatically installing 29 non-free components with neither permission nor warning is not Free Software friendly).

Debian *is* Free software friendly: the manufacturers aren't and the non-free firmware included is to allow people to actually install Debian. The project deliberately split the firmware out into a new repository, tagged as non-free and gave instructions as to what that was. The Project doesn't recommend
the use of other non-free software but retains that repository separately for those that want to use it.

If Debian is going to continue promoting itself with those "Our Philosophy" and "Why Debian" pages, there should at least be opt-ins during the installation process of every Debian download, as well as prominent warnings of the new policy on the download pages. Until that's done, the
"Our Philosophy" and "Why Debian" pages (and perhaps others) should be re-worded so as to not be so misleading.

The philosophy remains the same: there is an option during installation
and there are explicit opt-ins to each repository that gets added to /etc/apt/sources.list or equivalent. If you *really* want to check,
do an expert install of Debian which includes the lowest priority questions that can generally be omitted in a standard install.

I was disappointed to eventually read of Debian's "vote"
on non-free-firmware. Though I do understand the desire to make Debian more friendly to new users, doing so by misleading and alienating many existing users doesn't make a lot of sense IMO:

The vote was as standard vote via General Resolution not just a "vote".
Doing this has allowed some new users to install Debian. Visually impaired users may need non-free firmware just to be able to hear the installer:
others may need WiFi to work - not all machines now have Ethernet available.

After reading of this change, I then spent the next week trying to figure
out how to re-install Debian without the non-free firmware. That's when I discovered that Debian has suddenly become very Free-Software-UNfriendly. Even when I used the "firmware=never" method on the Debian installer
(Live image dvd), the 29 non-free components were still installed! Without warning. That "firmware=never" method is what Debian.org itself is recommending (on a rather deep link sadly), but it doesn't even work!

See above: this may be a consequence of using the live DVD

So I eventually abandoned that longtime favorite method of installing my preferred desktop, and switched to the NON-Live DVD installation... But
then discovered that using "firmware=never" method there also blocks FREE-firmware that used to get installed. So now my Wifi adapter didn't
work, whereas it always worked with Debian 11/Bullseye and earlier installations.

Which chipset, please? If you installed the free firmware package, what changed?

Ultimately it took me about a week, and about a dozen Debian Bookworm re-installations, and even hiring a developer, to get an installation via DVD that was similar to what was previously installed by default. I've provided some tips below to others

who are struggling. However, Debian needs to change all it's installers to provide "opt-in" for anything non-free. Even if that "opt-in" is checked by default, it should be easy to opt-out. Debian's current leadership may have lost sight of their own "
Why Debian" and "Our Philosophy" and "Who we are and what we do" claims, but Free Software philosophy is still important to many people. Actually, it's still important, period. But whether the current leader/"voters" agree or understand or not, there
should be choice for users.

<big snip>

I really hope something changes. In the meantime, I'm personally reverting to > Debian 11 since it still has a few years of support. I am aware of PureOS,
but the Debian community is still so great, and with 10+ years of Debian-devotion/love at this point, I'll stick with the workarounds for as long as I can.

If you don't add the non-free-firmware repositories to a Debian 11, you
can update to Debian 12 - but that's a complicated way round.



With the best will in the world, you could have phrased some of this in
a slightly shorter way - some lines rewrapped to accommodate sense above.

With every good wish, as ever,

Andy Cater
[amacater@debian.org]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

----- Original message -----
From: Curt <curty@free.fr>

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, Curt wrote:

How can you be taken seriously when you can't even wrap your lines
according to our venerable guidelines?
Get a popular setting going, buddy.

And, though it's true I extolled Proust recently, being succinct with
well-wrapped lines is the height of mailing-list sophistication (unless
your Marcel, which you ain't).

The Debian mailing list guidelines (for our less supple intellects).

1. Disregard important suggestions of newcomers who don't line wrap.
2. Bombastically tell them they don't have supple intellects.
Are those part of the mailing list guidelines, Curt?

I'm sorry I irked you so much Curt, but you don't have to be rude.
It was the first time I've ever messaged a Debian list,
and it's been years since I've had to set line-wrap.

"Let us be grateful to the people who make us happy;
they are the charming gardeners who make our souls blossom."
― Marcel Proust

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Andrew M.A. Cater <amacater@einval.com> wrote:

That's probably a bug in Calamares. I checked with one of the live cd maintainers on this. As has been pointed out, the live cd is really
intended more for checking than for major use but it does need some work.
If you found the non-free components - where were they - under the /firmware directory?

Thank you for the very helpful reply Andrew.

I always use Debian's "Graphical Installer" option.
I'm not sure what Calamares is, but will look into it.

However, I will also re-word what I now believe to be the primary issue
here into a more succinct message, figure out how to add line-wrap,
and re-submit to a more appropriate list.

Thank you for everyone's helpful replies. Despite what one person
said about not taking me seriously, I believe there's an important
problem here, and that fixing it will be a good thing
for the Debian project.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact?
Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html

Maybe `reportbug debian-installer`?

but perhaps without all the deception crap, unless you really mean
to impugn the developers' motives.

Yup, better try to make the developers/maintainers your friends, so you
may get them to do something with which they disagree just to make you
happy, rather than refuse to do something out of spite, even tho they
know it's right.


Stefan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 05:02:09PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:

Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact? >> > Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html

Maybe `reportbug debian-installer`?

but perhaps without all the deception crap, unless you really mean
to impugn the developers' motives.

Yup, better try to make the developers/maintainers your friends, so you
may get them to do something with which they disagree just to make you
happy, rather than refuse to do something out of spite, even tho they
know it's right.

Hi Stefan,

As you say, there are ways to get the developers to pay attention to
you. One of them, at least, is to be constructive and to assume good
faith. Developers will often take the best technical solution rather
than doing it "just to make you happy".

Rarely do developers do something out of spite though there may be
massive technical disagreements. It's probably worth remembering
that Debian developers are also users of Debian - and that we're
all more or less on the same side.

Imputation of bad faith (or snarky comments) don't help either the
person commented on or the reputation of the commenter, necessarily.

With every good wish, as ever,

Andrew Cater
[amacater@debian.org]

Stefan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-04-22, Reid <reidbox@proinbox.com> wrote:

I'm sorry I irked you so much Curt, but you don't have to be rude.

I'm Curt.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)