On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:53:59 +0200 al3xu5 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tue, 13 Apr 2021 22:03:02 +0200 - tito <[email protected]>: > > <snip> > > > Two serious question arise now? > > > > 1) should echo "ALWAYS_SET_PATH true" > /etc/default/su > > be added to the script to restore old su behaviour or > > should that be left to the user > > I think it should be left to the user, using the buster > "pre-migration" situation as the default choice OK Keep "status quo". Ciao, Tito > > Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:02:54 -0400 - Steve Litt > <[email protected]>: > > > tito via Dng said on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 22:03:02 +0200 > > > > > > >2) should non-free and contrib repos be added to sources.list > > > or should that be left to the user > > > <snip> > > I believe enough non-free and contrib stuff should be available at > > install time (or boot time on a live CD/flash) that the user doesn't > > need to put in additional media to get boot, network, video and > > sound working. And I believe any non-free and contrib stuff should, > > by default, be installed at install time, but before installation > > the user should be given the option of opting out of this > > non-free/contrib stuff, so if he/she only uses free software, > > he/she can maintain that principle in the installation. > > I totally agree. > > > > [ Extra OT comment START > > > Stating it the inverse way, I HATE these installs that bomb because > > there's no FSF-satisfying drivers, firmware or software to handle > > my new laptop's weird hardware. And those distros that do that, > > their mailing lists always say "well just put in a thumb drive with > > the drivers/firmware!" How the KFDWOJMFOW do I know which drivers > > and firmware? I think free software purist snobs drive more people > > back to Windows than cleanse people of their non-free ways. > > > I agree in principle, although I believe the question is more complex. > > Premise 1: From a practical point of view, I do not think the claim to > have 100% free software (in the sense of software with a copyleft or > GPL-copyleft-compatible license) in order to have freedom, privacy, > security, stability etc., makes much sense: the hardware remains not > free, the vanilla kernel has blobs, a loto of free software are > actually used for the worst nephans... and certainly it is not a > license (any) which could be able to guarantee people freedom or > privacy or security... > > Premise 2: For me it does not detect to talk about Windows vs Linux or > distro_a vs Distro_B: it is not about "selling" something, nor to > "vote" to establish what is better or worse. > > Premise 3: The "pure" distros (those who do not provide "non-free" > software) should bring users to increase their awareness: even if > this is an important and shareable goal, the result will hardly be > achieved in this way... As already observed, if people don't already > have that awareness, the result will be that most of the users simply > will change distro or install Windows (maybe pirated). > > That being said, as far as the software licenses are important for > software, people freedom and equality are linked to social and > political aspects that are generally related only partly to digital > technologies, and which are at a much broader and "high" level. > > My computer is 100% free software (at least I think it is), but not > for this I think I am free; and if all the devices of the world were > 100% free software, I don't think this would be enough to give > everyone freedom. > > (please, sorry for length and boredom) > > Extra OT comment END ] > > > > al3xu5 > _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
