simple question regarding download of debian 7 wheezy

[Erik1984]

No, actually.

It's nice that Debian supplies links to non-free firmware. It'd be even nicer if they just rolled it all into the install.

That's against the spirit of Debian. They promote FOSS, that's why non-free and contrib are not part of your sources.list by default. Sure, having all the proprietary firmware and codecs by default would make Debian more convenient and 'noob-friendly' but I don't think that's their goal

[sid0972]

either ways i dont think if there's any need for me to use proprietary drivers, i'm cool with open source, and this is just for learning purpose

[excollier]

No, actually.

It's nice that Debian supplies links to non-free firmware. It'd be even nicer if they just rolled it all into the install.

They do. I downloaded the iso with non-free included.

http://live.debian.net/cdimage/relea...64/iso-hybrid/

[buzzingrobot]

That's against the spirit of Debian. They promote FOSS, that's why non-free and contrib are not part of your sources.list by default. Sure, having all the proprietary firmware and codecs by default would make Debian more convenient and 'noob-friendly' but I don't think that's their goal

I know. I've just lost patience with developers not wanting to dirty their hands for prissy ideological reasons but then foisting this work onto their users. It's forcing users -- not asking them -- to inconvenience themselves for reasons that are important to developers but may not at all be important to any given user. I don't see how that promotes FOSS. If you can't run Debian on your hardware without non-free code, then what you have learned, in fact, is that FOSS is inadequate to your needs.

I'd rather see every non-free driver, etc., that can legally be in an install package be included and be treated during the install just as another piece of code. (Same thing applies to Ubuntu and those "restricted" packages of codecs, Flash, and fonts. If it's legal to put it in an install package, that's where it belongs.)

[buzzingrobot]

They do. I downloaded the iso with non-free included.

http://live.debian.net/cdimage/relea...64/iso-hybrid/

I see those are "unoffical". Does that have a bearing on how Debian supports them?

Are the non-free bits handled in the same way as everything else by the installer, or does the user need to accomplish the installation of non-free firmware independently and then return to the installer?

[sid0972]

i dont think if its huge that they are unofficial, if i can run them live, why the hell not?
even if they might or might not have one or two proprietary drivers/software, dont think if it makes much of a difference

[mips]

I know. I've just lost patience with developers not wanting to dirty their hands for prissy ideological reasons but then foisting this work onto their users. It's forcing users -- not asking them -- to inconvenience themselves for reasons that are important to developers but may not at all be important to any given user. I don't see how that promotes FOSS. If you can't run Debian on your hardware without non-free code, then what you have learned, in fact, is that FOSS is inadequate to your needs.

I'd rather see every non-free driver, etc., that can legally be in an install package be included and be treated during the install just as another piece of code. (Same thing applies to Ubuntu and those "restricted" packages of codecs, Flash, and fonts. If it's legal to put it in an install package, that's where it belongs.)

Listen up, you're looking a gift horse in the mouth. What developers decide to do is their prerogative, if you don't like it move on!

If you don't like then switch to a different distro, Windows or OS X. You have choices.

[monkeybrain2012]

I don't see how that promotes FOSS. If you can't run Debian on your hardware without non-free code, then what you have learned, in fact, is that FOSS is inadequate to your needs.

I know that the reason given by Fedora is that hopefully you would learn the lesson that you should purchase hardware that doesn't require non free codes to run. I think Debian's reason would be similar. However, if you do have such hardware it does provide the means to get it to work hence the non free codes are available if you really need them.

I have both Debian and Ubuntu, for different reasons. I use Ubuntu as my main OS because it just works, I like the convenience and the stability (Well I use Debian sid, not Debian stable with the stale software so Ubuntu is actually more stable). But I also like to use Debian to learn. In Debian I do a lot of things manually which in Ubuntu would have been taken care of out of the box. I think it is worthwhile to acquire those skills. I actually also like Debian's philosophy, even though it may be hard to adhere to all the time, but I think we shouldn't lose sight of idealistic visions while being pragmatic to get things done (for the same reason I have lots of respect for the FSF and RMS even though I can't, in all honesty adhere their way in practice)

[buzzingrobot]

Listen up, you're looking a gift horse in the mouth. What developers decide to do is their prerogative...

Couldn't agree more. FOSS is a developer's game.

I have no issue with developers and FOSS. What I think is pretty purposeless is keeping non-free code out of the primary install routine because the developers have ethical issues with that, but then helping the user install the same non-free files. If, for example, a distro opposes non-free code on an ethical basis, why then push that "sinful" work off an users? It's as if the developers don't want to dirty their hands, but don't mind or care if users have to do that.

The entire approach assumes that the users know about FOSS, know why the developers harbor those ethical objections, and are willing to inconvenience themselves as the price to be paid for using FOSS. In the case of Linux newcomers, I don't think that is an accurate assumption. New users are as likely to be ticked off by what they see as developer arrogance as they are impressed with developer virtue. We should not assume that every Linux user cares about FOSS.

[buzzingrobot]

I know that the reason given by Fedora is that hopefully you would learn the lesson that you should purchase hardware that doesn't require non free codes to run. I think Debian's reason would be similar.

People have been hoping that for 20 years and it still really hasn't happened. The only people who buy hardware specifically to avoid running non-free code are firm and enthusiastic FOSS adherents. For them, the "free" aspect of software takes top priority over everything else. Like RMS, they are willing to limit their digital capabilities so long as they feel good about keeping the faith. The vast majority of computer users don't care.

I have no issues with FOSS. I understand why FOSS developers want their code to be free. I just happen to think that pushing work off on users, and inconveniencing users, because developers are averse to packaging someone else's non-free files in their installation routines is counter to everyone's interests. Specifically, it does not turn new users into FOSS converts. I suspect in many, many instances new users just see a Linux distribution that doesn't work right after the install, get frustrated, and go back to Windows.