Re: [Sugar-devel] Compatibility report on latest Debian-based sugar live build - Xorg fails to load due to missing firmware
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 06:18:14PM -0800, Alex Perez wrote: > James Cameron wrote on 1/17/2021 6:12 PM: > > It sounds like you share some of the same intentions as Martin Guy, > > who needed i386 support. He found what he needed with Trisquel. Have > > you tried that? > No, I'm interested in running on x86_64, EFI-compliant hardware. I > have no need or desire for Trisquel. Thanks. That's my problem too; I'm not interested in i386, I'm not interested in Trisquel, in Fedora, or SoaS. In turn, because of how I'm funded. The situation reminds me of Jussi Pakkanen's talk at linux.conf.au about this time last year, where he described several open source project interations (iLN6wL7ExHU from 8:47 to 17:50), eventually concluding that "What does it say about the OSS community, if cooperating with people using something other than your chosen tool is seen as an act of desperation?" https://lca2020.linux.org.au/schedule/presentation/87/ My perspective is that expanding to include i386 or non-free packages is effectively a request to expand my scope of software maintenance, and that I should instead reduce complexity to reduce cost of maintenance. A more correct solution within this perspective is for you to use Fedora. -- James Cameron https://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Compatibility report on latest Debian-based sugar live build - Xorg fails to load due to missing firmware
James Cameron wrote on 1/17/2021 6:12 PM: It sounds like you share some of the same intentions as Martin Guy, who needed i386 support. He found what he needed with Trisquel. Have you tried that? No, I'm interested in running on x86_64, EFI-compliant hardware. I have no need or desire for Trisquel. ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Compatibility report on latest Debian-based sugar live build - Xorg fails to load due to missing firmware
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 04:56:06PM -0800, Alex Perez wrote: > Answers inline Thanks. Me too. > James Cameron wrote on 1/17/2021 2:16 PM: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:03:10PM -0800, Alex Perez wrote: > > > James, > > > > > > I booted up the latest Sugar-live-build image, which I'd > > > downloaded from > > > http://people.sugarlabs.org/~quozl/sugar-live-build/ and written > > > to a USB stick, and booted it up in an HP-branded terminal from > > > ~2012, which works perfectly fine with the latest Fedora SoaS > > > images. > > Thanks for testing. > > > > > Simply bundling the 'firmware-amd-graphics' package from the > > > firmware-nonfree repo when you build the Live image would mean > > > the image would work correctly on a vastly larger amount of > > > hardware, out of the box. > > > > > > I would encourage you to take it one step further, and bundle > > > the firmware-linux-nonfree metapackage, which will include > > > firmware for things like Marvell wireless cards, Intel wireless > > > cards, Atheros wireless cards (both USB and integrated/PCI/PCIe) > > How will Sugar Labs comply with the licenses of these firmwares? > > > I'm afraid I don't understand what the concern is here. Okay, putting it differently; if a developer acting on behalf of Sugar Labs distributes this firmware via Sugar Labs infrastructure, is this action protected in any way? > "Sugar" isn't subject to anything different from a licensing > perspective, and therefore under no obligation to "comply" with > anything: > > https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8849/does-distributing-gpl-software-along-with-binary-image-force-the-binary-image-to > > All of the firmware images packaged by Debian in the non-free repo > is freely redistributable, but not open-source. Actually, https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive#s-non-free says "not compliant with DFSG", "encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make their distirbution problematic". I don't think they are freely redistributable. A next step is to review all the licenses of the packages you asked for. > Fedora packages them, and includes them by default. Their > LiveCDs/images work out of the box with them. Debian packages them, > but does not install them by default, presumably out of ideological > reticence. > > Since the goal of the Debian Sugar LiveCD Okay, that's a new name. I've been calling it Sugar Live Build. > should be to work, transparently, on as many computers > out-of-the-box as is possible, this would seemingly be an obvious > improvement. It can be a goal, but it was not my goal to begin with. My goal was to provide an environment for student developers who lacked the capacity to install Sugar in the fashion we had required, while bypassing the downstream distribution processes because we couldn't rely on downstream to be timely. > It's not possible to install from this LiveCD on a ton of "modern" > hardware (the machine I'm using is from 2011) with the current state > of bundled packages. If the goal is to only allow it to function > fully on machines which are incapable of functioning fully without > binary firmware blobs, I'd argue that this should be disclosed > during the installation process. It sounds like you share some of the same intentions as Martin Guy, who needed i386 support. He found what he needed with Trisquel. Have you tried that? -- James Cameron https://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Compatibility report on latest Debian-based sugar live build - Xorg fails to load due to missing firmware
Maybe we can distribute a free and a nonfree version? More work but not so much On Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 7:56 PM Alex Perez wrote: > Answers inline > > James Cameron wrote on 1/17/2021 2:16 PM: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:03:10PM -0800, Alex Perez wrote: > >> James, > >> > >> I booted up the latest Sugar-live-build image, which I'd downloaded from > >> http://people.sugarlabs.org/~quozl/sugar-live-build/ and written to a > USB > >> stick, and booted it up in an HP-branded terminal from ~2012, which > works > >> perfectly fine with the latest Fedora SoaS images. > > Thanks for testing. > > > >> Simply bundling the 'firmware-amd-graphics' package from the > >> firmware-nonfree repo when you build the Live image would mean the image > >> would work correctly on a vastly larger amount of hardware, out of the > box. > >> > >> I would encourage you to take it one step further, and bundle the > >> firmware-linux-nonfree metapackage, which will include firmware for > things > >> like Marvell wireless cards, Intel wireless cards, Atheros wireless > cards > >> (both USB and integrated/PCI/PCIe) > > How will Sugar Labs comply with the licenses of these firmwares? > > > I'm afraid I don't understand what the concern is here. "Sugar" isn't > subject to anything different from a licensing perspective, and > therefore under no obligation to "comply" with anything: > > > https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8849/does-distributing-gpl-software-along-with-binary-image-force-the-binary-image-to > > All of the firmware images packaged by Debian in the non-free repo is > freely redistributable, but not open-source. > > Fedora packages them, and includes them by default. Their LiveCDs/images > work out of the box with them. Debian packages them, but does not > install them by default, presumably out of ideological reticence. > > Since the goal of the Debian Sugar LiveCD should be to work, > transparently, on as many computers out-of-the-box as is possible, this > would seemingly be an obvious improvement. It's not possible to install > from this LiveCD on a ton of "modern" hardware (the machine I'm using is > from 2011) with the current state of bundled packages. If the goal is to > only allow it to function fully on machines which are incapable of > functioning fully without binary firmware blobs, I'd argue that this > should be disclosed during the installation process. > ___ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Compatibility report on latest Debian-based sugar live build - Xorg fails to load due to missing firmware
Answers inline James Cameron wrote on 1/17/2021 2:16 PM: On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:03:10PM -0800, Alex Perez wrote: James, I booted up the latest Sugar-live-build image, which I'd downloaded from http://people.sugarlabs.org/~quozl/sugar-live-build/ and written to a USB stick, and booted it up in an HP-branded terminal from ~2012, which works perfectly fine with the latest Fedora SoaS images. Thanks for testing. Simply bundling the 'firmware-amd-graphics' package from the firmware-nonfree repo when you build the Live image would mean the image would work correctly on a vastly larger amount of hardware, out of the box. I would encourage you to take it one step further, and bundle the firmware-linux-nonfree metapackage, which will include firmware for things like Marvell wireless cards, Intel wireless cards, Atheros wireless cards (both USB and integrated/PCI/PCIe) How will Sugar Labs comply with the licenses of these firmwares? I'm afraid I don't understand what the concern is here. "Sugar" isn't subject to anything different from a licensing perspective, and therefore under no obligation to "comply" with anything: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8849/does-distributing-gpl-software-along-with-binary-image-force-the-binary-image-to All of the firmware images packaged by Debian in the non-free repo is freely redistributable, but not open-source. Fedora packages them, and includes them by default. Their LiveCDs/images work out of the box with them. Debian packages them, but does not install them by default, presumably out of ideological reticence. Since the goal of the Debian Sugar LiveCD should be to work, transparently, on as many computers out-of-the-box as is possible, this would seemingly be an obvious improvement. It's not possible to install from this LiveCD on a ton of "modern" hardware (the machine I'm using is from 2011) with the current state of bundled packages. If the goal is to only allow it to function fully on machines which are incapable of functioning fully without binary firmware blobs, I'd argue that this should be disclosed during the installation process. ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Compatibility report on latest Debian-based sugar live build - Xorg fails to load due to missing firmware
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:03:10PM -0800, Alex Perez wrote: > James, > > I booted up the latest Sugar-live-build image, which I'd downloaded from > http://people.sugarlabs.org/~quozl/sugar-live-build/ and written to a USB > stick, and booted it up in an HP-branded terminal from ~2012, which works > perfectly fine with the latest Fedora SoaS images. Thanks for testing. > During early boot, the kernel printed a message which stated, > "drm:radeon_pci_probe [radeon]] *ERROR* radeon kernel modesetting for R600 > or later requires firmware installed." followed by a line which said "See > http://wiki.debian.org/Firmware for information about missing firmware" > > Furthermore, Xorg also fails to subsequently initialize in the fallback > fbdev mode, with Xorg reporting "Cannot run in framebuffer omde. Please > specify busIDs for all framebuffer devices", resulting in the machine > sitting at a Linux console forever. > > Simply bundling the 'firmware-amd-graphics' package from the > firmware-nonfree repo when you build the Live image would mean the image > would work correctly on a vastly larger amount of hardware, out of the box. > > I would encourage you to take it one step further, and bundle the > firmware-linux-nonfree metapackage, which will include firmware for things > like Marvell wireless cards, Intel wireless cards, Atheros wireless cards > (both USB and integrated/PCI/PCIe) How will Sugar Labs comply with the licenses of these firmwares? -- James Cameron https://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
[Sugar-devel] Compatibility report on latest Debian-based sugar live build - Xorg fails to load due to missing firmware
James, I booted up the latest Sugar-live-build image, which I'd downloaded from http://people.sugarlabs.org/~quozl/sugar-live-build/ and written to a USB stick, and booted it up in an HP-branded terminal from ~2012, which works perfectly fine with the latest Fedora SoaS images. During early boot, the kernel printed a message which stated, "drm:radeon_pci_probe [radeon]] *ERROR* radeon kernel modesetting for R600 or later requires firmware installed." followed by a line which said "See http://wiki.debian.org/Firmware for information about missing firmware" Furthermore, Xorg also fails to subsequently initialize in the fallback fbdev mode, with Xorg reporting "Cannot run in framebuffer omde. Please specify busIDs for all framebuffer devices", resulting in the machine sitting at a Linux console forever. Simply bundling the 'firmware-amd-graphics' package from the firmware-nonfree repo when you build the Live image would mean the image would work correctly on a vastly larger amount of hardware, out of the box. I would encourage you to take it one step further, and bundle the firmware-linux-nonfree metapackage, which will include firmware for things like Marvell wireless cards, Intel wireless cards, Atheros wireless cards (both USB and integrated/PCI/PCIe) Thanks, Alex Perez ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
