xi a écrit :
Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
2011/11/10 Frank Griffin <[email protected]>:
On 11/10/2011 02:25 AM, Johnny A. Solbu wrote:
In other words, you would prefer to have non-free drivers to remain
in the
"core" tree because otherwise some hardware may not work? (Did i
understand
you correctly?)
If we're going to have core and non-free to begin with, then
non-free stuff
shouldn't be in core. That being said, it isn't the problem here. The
problem is that non-free isn't as available as core. It should be,
based on
prompting the user during install. Those who want a totally free
system
that lacks non-free functionality just have to say no.
If it makes a philosophical difference, then have no default and
require the
user to explicitly answer yes or no, and get treated accordingly.
Putting
non-free stuff in core is an attempted solution to the problem that
enabling
and using non-free in an installed core-only system is much more
complicated
than it ought to be. By the time a user boots his installed system,
non-free stuff should already be there if he wants it there.
By the time a user boots his installed system he either has the online
repositories already set (after install from liveCD) or is just a
mouse click away from setting them. When the online repos are set the
non-free repo is available if the user wants to have it.
What about if I don't have internet access ?
(Typically, in my company, we provided Mandriva DVD for customer with
no internet connection. There were able to get a working system
without any additional trick).
Maybe I misunderstood the problem (if so, sorry) :
If it is just a matter of asking to user whether or not he wants to
install non free firmware, then just go! But if the user with no
internet access is stuck because of firmware absence, then that's just
stupid!
Xavier
+1
free software is supposed to be about not taking away freedoms ...
--
André
