2011/11/10 xi <[email protected]>: > 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 ?
Then he should use the liveCD. As has been in Mandriva. > 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! This has been the same in Mandriva times: - an installation DVD as Free Edition without non-free stuff - installable LiveCDs including non-free drivers. -- wobo
