http://rhombus-tech.net/ingenic/jz4775/news/
this is totally cool, photos of the x-ray machine and the DDR3 and jz4775 SoC. of the six samples made, only one did not have bridging between the DDR3 ICs, so i asked the factory if they'd like to get some experience at sorting out BGA ICs, which they did - here's the results, and they look great.
l.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Monday 25. April 2016 12.03.11 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
http://rhombus-tech.net/ingenic/jz4775/news/
this is totally cool, photos of the x-ray machine and the DDR3 and jz4775 SoC. of the six samples made, only one did not have bridging between the DDR3 ICs, so i asked the factory if they'd like to get some experience at sorting out BGA ICs, which they did - here's the results, and they look great.
Good news! That machine looks like something everyone should have at home. I particularly like the typeface used for "X-RAY". ;-)
I suppose you're now part way through your planet-roaming exercise, and I was going to ask how things had been progressing.
Paul
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On Monday 25. April 2016 12.03.11 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
http://rhombus-tech.net/ingenic/jz4775/news/
this is totally cool, photos of the x-ray machine and the DDR3 and jz4775 SoC. of the six samples made, only one did not have bridging between the DDR3 ICs, so i asked the factory if they'd like to get some experience at sorting out BGA ICs, which they did - here's the results, and they look great.
Good news! That machine looks like something everyone should have at home.
yeah! eeveryone should be making PCBs at home... :)
I particularly like the typeface used for "X-RAY". ;-)
:)
I suppose you're now part way through your planet-roaming exercise, and I was going to ask how things had been progressing.
ok - we have a daughter, lilyana, so decided to stay here in den haag for another month.
the casework which i 3d-printed and assembled in translucent black and "robot silver" from faberdashery looks absolutely superb, a few niggles to resolve but that's fine: it's good enough to send to crowdsupply, where they have a professional studio so will take some pictures, and we can start the crowdfunding campaign in a few weeks. joshua is giving a talk on may 18th so wants to be able to include the libre laptop in that.
now, as far as picking OSes is concerned that are FSF-Endorseable, we've got an interesting situation where we'll need some porting and packaging help. there basically aren't any good libre OSes for ARM (due to canonical's recent blatant GPL violations and record on privacy, those based on ubuntu *not* being "good", plus trisquel is currently based on ubuntu 8.04 which doesn't have an ARM port), and the only one for MIPS is gnewsense and that's been custom-targetted at the leemote laptop.
the thing is though, that the current situation for FSF-Endorseability of hardware is even worse than it appears, due to the simple fact that there *aren't* any modern FSF-Endorseable x86 processors.... period. *all* intel processors of the past 15 years require a proprietary RSA-signed piece of firmware in order to boot, and all AMD processors require a licensed proprietary piece of firmware from Intel because AMD licensed intel's HDMI interface.
so... err.... basically, the approach that i'm taking, slow as it's progressing, actually stands to be the first modern "Good Enough Computing" [1] hardware that *can* actually be FSF-Endorsed.
aside from that, i'm also focussing quite a lot on the portable 3d printer, which is going to be a critical tool that i will need over the next year. the current version is around 450x410x200mm when stowed, and i'm working on a second version that's around 440x360x155mm. i've ordered various bits, which include something called a Flex3Drive, it's based around an automotive-grade flexible shaft, 800mm long, that can transfer the power of the extruder stepper motor down to where the filament hot-end is, so that the hot-end can be lightweight and move very fast, whilst at the same time remaining accurate.
i don't know if you're familiar with 3d printers but there's two main designs (now three) - "direct drive" where you have the stepper (400g) mounted on the carriage. that gets thrown around a bit like a brick, at high speed, and it causes problems unless you're happy to run slowly. then there's "bowden" which is where you put in a teflon tube 800mm long and you push the filament all the way down that. it means that the carriage can be as light as 150 grams (less in the case of delta printers), but the problem is you get flex in the tube, and any compression in the filament due to its material properties is amplified hugely.
the Flex3Drive solves all that, combining the best of both worlds. when i read up on it i went "wow! someone who clearly knows what they're doing!" :) so with that and a "Volcano" set for the hotend i should be able to do reliable, high-quality prints at around 3x the speed of most reprap printers, in a small and compact space. it's a lot of fun and i should get on with it, so much to do.
l.
[1] http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-real-reason-for-the-pc-sales-plunge-the-era... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_good_enough
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Hrvoje Lasic lasich@gmail.com wrote:
ok - we have a daughter, lilyana, so decided to stay here in den haag for another month.
We are at the moment at Rockstart accelerator (Amsterdam) in current smart energy program. If you will be at any time in Amsterdam will gladly have a beer if you have time.
cool! nice idea. oo that rockstart thing looks fun. might make a trip over, see what's going on. anyone doing either ultra-efficient engine design or eco-conscious computing devices? i wouldn't have been able to apply due to their requirement to have a pathologically-profit-maximising limited company (which directly conflicts with and totally over-rides the ethical and environmental angles, and i cannot ever sign up to something that i've assessed in advance to be in "conflict") but it would be nice to see what people are up to.
l.
actually, smart energy kind of have ethical angle but still you are supposed to make also profitable business. What Rockstart is good at, it is very networked and supportive environment, they have large pool of mentors and they really try to help you about making business and implementing lean methods in creating business. If you have idea what you would like to find out maybe I can try to organize you some meetings around specific ppl.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net
wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Hrvoje Lasic lasich@gmail.com wrote:
ok - we have a daughter, lilyana, so decided to stay here in den haag for another month.
We are at the moment at Rockstart accelerator (Amsterdam) in current
smart
energy program. If you will be at any time in Amsterdam will gladly have
a
beer if you have time.
cool! nice idea. oo that rockstart thing looks fun. might make a trip over, see what's going on. anyone doing either ultra-efficient engine design or eco-conscious computing devices? i wouldn't have been able to apply due to their requirement to have a pathologically-profit-maximising limited company (which directly conflicts with and totally over-rides the ethical and environmental angles, and i cannot ever sign up to something that i've assessed in advance to be in "conflict") but it would be nice to see what people are up to.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Hrvoje Lasic lasich@gmail.com wrote:
actually, smart energy kind of have ethical angle but still you are supposed to make also profitable business.
my point is: unless you have specifically negotiated with the VCs to be permitted to go with a non-standard Company Articles of Incorporation, the priority is, by law, the other way round.
CICs in the UK, and in the USA "Benefit Corporations", have *legally* within the Articles of Incorporation, the right to prioritise other matters such as ethical and environmental priorities. actually they go something like this, in order of LEGALLY-BINDING priority:
PRIORITY 1: do not make a loss PRIORITY 2: focus on ethical and environmental priorities PRIORITY 3: make a profit.
as these things directly conflict with "Investor Interests", in the UK there's actually legal requirements that prevent and prohibit "Holding Corporations" from owning CICs. however, a CIC "Holding Company" may own a straight "Corporation" or even a PLC as an asset.
there's quite a lot involved but in essence, CICs and Benefit Corporations are the right vehicle for eco-conscious business. standard corporations are basically flat-out lying through their teeth. when the chips are down, the priority is PROFIT not ENVIRONMENT or ETHICs.
this is a simple flat-out undeniable fact, one that, sadly, many "eco incubators" are simply, put, completely ignorant of.
What Rockstart is good at, it is very networked and supportive environment, they have large pool of mentors and they really try to help you about making business and implementing lean methods in creating business. If you have idea what you would like to find out maybe I can try to organize you some meetings around specific ppl.
i think the main question i'd like to establish is whether they understand the importance of using CICs (or equivalent) for eco-conscious business. otherwise, being flat-out blunt, they're basically deceiving absolutely every single company that they've got an 8% stake in.
l.
One of the company involved in this year program also actually think to be organized as "Benefit Corporation". They are from Italy and as I understood in Italy this is possible (one of the very few countries) and their business idea is strongly socially oriented. I didn't ask myself if this is legally possible - good question. I guess that you would have to discuss it with some legal person and as Rockstart is partially financed from Dutch lottery (which is by definition charity) maybe they will agree (also to be honest many of ppl around Rockstart are already proven entrepreneurs and they dont look for money, they really like idea of helping star-ups and to be involved in this community). So, your main question needs to be discussed.
However, in later stage when you actually need investment to scale it might be more difficult to raise money (from simple reason that investor ask for profit - this is truth). It may need some other means to raise money for your company. There are some social funds (on London stock exchange as I understood) in UK where there is money for such a companies and one of our mentor has company that they look for money in this particular fond.
Between priority 1 and 3 there is little difference. If you are able to make business that has no losses, you might do some profit as well (and reinvest it in your idea again of course).
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Hrvoje Lasic lasich@gmail.com wrote:
actually, smart energy kind of have ethical angle but still you are
supposed
to make also profitable business.
my point is: unless you have specifically negotiated with the VCs to be permitted to go with a non-standard Company Articles of Incorporation, the priority is, by law, the other way round.
CICs in the UK, and in the USA "Benefit Corporations", have *legally* within the Articles of Incorporation, the right to prioritise other matters such as ethical and environmental priorities. actually they go something like this, in order of LEGALLY-BINDING priority:
PRIORITY 1: do not make a loss PRIORITY 2: focus on ethical and environmental priorities PRIORITY 3: make a profit.
as these things directly conflict with "Investor Interests", in the UK there's actually legal requirements that prevent and prohibit "Holding Corporations" from owning CICs. however, a CIC "Holding Company" may own a straight "Corporation" or even a PLC as an asset.
there's quite a lot involved but in essence, CICs and Benefit Corporations are the right vehicle for eco-conscious business. standard corporations are basically flat-out lying through their teeth. when the chips are down, the priority is PROFIT not ENVIRONMENT or ETHICs.
this is a simple flat-out undeniable fact, one that, sadly, many "eco incubators" are simply, put, completely ignorant of.
What Rockstart is good at, it is very networked and supportive environment, they have large pool of mentors and they really try to help you about making business and implementing lean methods in creating business. If you have idea what you would like to
find
out maybe I can try to organize you some meetings around specific ppl.
i think the main question i'd like to establish is whether they understand the importance of using CICs (or equivalent) for eco-conscious business. otherwise, being flat-out blunt, they're basically deceiving absolutely every single company that they've got an 8% stake in.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Hrvoje Lasic lasich@gmail.com wrote:
One of the company involved in this year program also actually think to be organized as "Benefit Corporation". They are from Italy and as I understood in Italy this is possible (one of the very few countries) and their business idea is strongly socially oriented. I didn't ask myself if this is legally possible - good question. I guess that you would have to discuss it with some legal person and as Rockstart is partially financed from Dutch lottery (which is by definition charity)
iinteresting.
However, in later stage when you actually need investment to scale it might be more difficult to raise money (from simple reason that investor ask for profit - this is truth). It may need some other means to raise money for your company.
well, let's think about it. you're an eco-company. you want some money, and you want to pursue ethical and/or eco priorities, do you *really* want to completely abandon all those principles, on which, basically the *entire company is based*, just to receive some money??
surely it would be better to explain to the investors that in order to achieve the goal of being profitable whilst prioritising eco-responsibility, that the investors need to accept that the ethical and eco priorities *are* the top priorities, yes?
and good investors - the ones that have the environment as a priority over profit in their minds, will go "hmm, you're right. actually, i've been looking for people just like you - here's a billion dollars".
Between priority 1 and 3 there is little difference.
it's a huge difference, that's only really noticeable when the financial pressure is on (such as shareholder fights that result in EGMs looking for good reasons to fire - or impeach - the Directors). a standard company that has an "Eco" policy or, as best illustrated in Professor Yunus' book "Creating a World Without Poverty", has a "Corporate Social Responsibility" policy, such policies are actually "Corporate Financial *IRR*esponsibility".
remember, Directors are *legally* required to pathologically enact the Articles of Incorporation. if you have not done so - for example by pursuing an "ethical business model" instead of "profit maximisation as clearly stated in the Articles of Incorporation", you can be prosecuted, receive a criminal record, and be struck off from ever being a Director.
it's a huge difference that is only really noticeable if you investigate it in depth.
l.
On Monday 25. April 2016 13.24.46 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
now, as far as picking OSes is concerned that are FSF-Endorseable, we've got an interesting situation where we'll need some porting and packaging help. there basically aren't any good libre OSes for ARM (due to canonical's recent blatant GPL violations and record on privacy, those based on ubuntu *not* being "good", plus trisquel is currently based on ubuntu 8.04 which doesn't have an ARM port), and the only one for MIPS is gnewsense and that's been custom-targetted at the leemote laptop.
Debian is available for mipsel. If it weren't, I wouldn't be able to put it on the Ben NanoNote (jz4725) and there probably wouldn't be any cross-compilers in Debian for mipsel, either. I can't say much about the desktop stack here because the Ben doesn't have enough memory to run something like KDE. ;-)
the thing is though, that the current situation for FSF-Endorseability of hardware is even worse than it appears, due to the simple fact that there *aren't* any modern FSF-Endorseable x86 processors.... period. *all* intel processors of the past 15 years require a proprietary RSA-signed piece of firmware in order to boot, and all AMD processors require a licensed proprietary piece of firmware from Intel because AMD licensed intel's HDMI interface.
so... err.... basically, the approach that i'm taking, slow as it's progressing, actually stands to be the first modern "Good Enough Computing" [1] hardware that *can* actually be FSF-Endorsed.
There's been a discussion on the FSFE discussion list about this, with someone advocating the POWER architecture for high-end products as an alternative to x86(-64). I think people are realising that they might need some other irons in the fire.
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2016-April/010912.html
Paul
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
Debian is available for mipsel.
... but debian isn't FSF-Endorseable, because it's made far too easy to install non-free proprietary firmware, and the practice is generally supported and accepted by the debian community, actively mentioned on the website as being possible, and many many other things that are completely and directly at odds with and in contravention of everything that the FSF stands for. technically and specifically: the default debian archive keyring includes by default the GPG keyring for the "nonfree" repository.
that having been said, debian is a first step. if debian works, then anything else will as well. if we made a special GPG archive keyring package where "nonfree" was specifically excluded, then that would be a reasonable first step towards making it possible for debian to be FSF-Endorseable.
If it weren't, I wouldn't be able to put it on the Ben NanoNote (jz4725) and there probably wouldn't be any cross-compilers in Debian for mipsel, either. I can't say much about the desktop stack here because the Ben doesn't have enough memory to run something like KDE. ;-)
yehh but it's fuuuun, i love the nanonote.
There's been a discussion on the FSFE discussion list about this, with someone advocating the POWER architecture for high-end products as an alternative to x86(-64). I think people are realising that they might need some other irons in the fire.
great! yes, there's a powerpc laptop team out there.
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2016-April/010912.html
oo that's quite an interesting discussion. if you get a chance to mention again that there's a MIPS (jz4775 with 2gb RAM) CPU Card in the pipeline, and that the whole exercise is just to be able to drop in better CPU Cards later, that would help enormously. also that i've been speaking recently to Josh Gay, and he says they're really excited about the whole EOMA68 libre laptop concept.
l.
On 2016-04-25 at 14:34:15 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
Debian is available for mipsel.
... but debian isn't FSF-Endorseable,
but its main repository has been recognised as a valid distribution to use to check whether some bit of hardware is compatibile with free software:
https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-and-debian-join-forces-to-help-free-software-us...
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valhalla@gmail.com wrote:
On 2016-04-25 at 14:34:15 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
Debian is available for mipsel.
... but debian isn't FSF-Endorseable,
but its main repository has been recognised as a valid distribution to use to check whether some bit of hardware is compatibile with free software:
https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-and-debian-join-forces-to-help-free-software-us...
ah good find elena.
"While the FSF does not include Debian on this list because the Debian project provides a repository of nonfree software, the FSF does acknowledge that Debian's main repository, which by default is the only place packages come from, is completely free."
i've been speaking with josh gay very recently, so the FSF Endorsement criteria are very clear to me: basically, josh explained that by allowing people to have an RYF Certification, they are in effect promoting the FSF "Trademark", and are therefore DIRECTLY working as agents for and on behalf of the FSF.
if there is *anything*that could potentially bring that trademark and the FSF into disrepute, then they simply cannot take the risk of giving you an RYF Certificate.
examples of that would be:
* the main landing page selling the RYF-Endorsed product downloads and executes arbitrary non-free programs (usually javascript but java and flash would count as well) in the end-user's web browser.
* the product contains "temptations" to install proprietary programs (such as, there's only exclusively non-free hardware functionality available) and the process by which installation of that non-free proprietary software is not only easy but is *ACTIVELY* encouraged.
so on that score, for example, ubuntu is totally... ahh.... {insert appropriate term here}.
however, debian definitely counts as well, because by installing synaptics package manager (which is easy), you can then add "non-free" repositories (easy), then (easily) download non-free programs. and that would bring the FSF's entire Charter and purpose into disrepute.
i have to check, but my feeling is, if they removed the nonfree GPG keyring from the standard debian-archive-keyring package and placed it into a debian-archive-keyring-nonfree package, which *wasn't* signed by default in a special version of debian-installer, All Would Be Well In FSF Land.
of course, standard debian-installers would then have _two_ keyring packages to download.
all of this i should actually be able to code up myself, by redoing that initial package and making sure that there's a separate (overriding) repository with pinning on that replacement debian-archive-keyring package. means recompiling debian-installer but that's cool.
l.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net writes:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valhalla@gmail.com wrote:
On 2016-04-25 at 14:34:15 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
Debian is available for mipsel.
... but debian isn't FSF-Endorseable,
but its main repository has been recognised as a valid distribution to use to check whether some bit of hardware is compatibile with free software:
https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-and-debian-join-forces-to-help-free-software-us...
ah good find elena.
"While the FSF does not include Debian on this list because the Debian project provides a repository of nonfree software, the FSF does acknowledge that Debian's main repository, which by default is the only place packages come from, is completely free."
i've been speaking with josh gay very recently, so the FSF Endorsement criteria are very clear to me: basically, josh explained that by allowing people to have an RYF Certification, they are in effect promoting the FSF "Trademark", and are therefore DIRECTLY working as agents for and on behalf of the FSF.
if there is *anything*that could potentially bring that trademark and the FSF into disrepute, then they simply cannot take the risk of giving you an RYF Certificate.
examples of that would be:
- the main landing page selling the RYF-Endorsed product downloads
and executes arbitrary non-free programs (usually javascript but java and flash would count as well) in the end-user's web browser.
- the product contains "temptations" to install proprietary programs
(such as, there's only exclusively non-free hardware functionality available) and the process by which installation of that non-free proprietary software is not only easy but is *ACTIVELY* encouraged.
so on that score, for example, ubuntu is totally... ahh.... {insert appropriate term here}.
however, debian definitely counts as well, because by installing synaptics package manager (which is easy), you can then add "non-free" repositories (easy), then (easily) download non-free programs. and that would bring the FSF's entire Charter and purpose into disrepute.
i have to check, but my feeling is, if they removed the nonfree GPG keyring from the standard debian-archive-keyring package and placed it into a debian-archive-keyring-nonfree package, which *wasn't* signed by default in a special version of debian-installer, All Would Be Well In FSF Land.
of course, standard debian-installers would then have _two_ keyring packages to download.
all of this i should actually be able to code up myself, by redoing that initial package and making sure that there's a separate (overriding) repository with pinning on that replacement debian-archive-keyring package. means recompiling debian-installer but that's cool.
You wouldn't need to recompile anything, I suspect -- you _might_ need to replace the relevant udeb, or you can probably do some sort of (possibly somewhat disgusting) kludge via preseeding.
Most probably, if you have a sensible patch, it could be made into preseedable debconf variable ("fsf-endorsable-mode"?).
Of course, the fact that is an option that could be turned off means that it's not going to satisfy the people that want Debian to make it so that some of our users will be unable to use their (crappy and annoying) hardware. So, it's probably not worth bothering with.
Debian will not make the experience worse for those users, to no real benefit to other users, because we have a Social Contract that ensures that we will not get in the way of people that want to use our software for things that we almost certainly disagree with.
Apparently some people think it's important to make Debian a tiresome experience for those that were foolish enough to no know the exact chipset that was going to be in whatever hardware they bought, and thus found that it (currently) needs its proprietary firmware uploaded.
Of course, they think it's totally fine if the same crappy hardware has it's offensive firmware welded into a chip instead, but let's not worry about that too much, eh?
The obvious unintended consequence of making Debian tiresome for those users is that they will be driven to use Ubuntu or something even less free that does support the hardware sitting in front of them.
Having switched away from Debian, those people will probably never worry about the non-freeness of their hardware again.
If they continue with Debian, they continue to have the chance to notice the "-nonfree" bit of the package name, and notice that there's other stuff that's cluttering up their system, and think about disabling it to see what breaks, and then maybe include that new knowledge in their next purchasing decision.
So, feel free to do whatever you are moved to do, but when you start spouting your overly-definite statements about how good or bad you think Debian is when judged on this basis, you're making the perfect the enemy of the good, and you're alienating your friends and allies while you're about it.
That press release is from 2014 BTW, so it's not exactly news that this issue is really not much of an issue. The way you talk about it gives the impression that Debian encourages people to use non-free software, whereas Debian/Debian Developers were for instance instrumental in moving binary blobs out of the kernel, something that is a pre-requisite to being able to have a Free Software Linux system at all.
Cheers, Phil.
hiya phil,
ok apologies for being slightly ahead and quite short, as you know i'm on limited time, so made a beeline for the conclusion. lots of steps that i left out, so this is, by necessity, very long, as it goes logically through step-by-step each part of the chain of reasoning. and, at each phase of that reasoning, i trust that you can see clearly that at NO TIME is "deliberately causing harm or projecting malice towards ANY party" something that i have time for.
as you know, i am quite goal-orientated. i define goals, and i go for them, directly. to define one of those goals to include a sub-goal of "deliberately cause physical, mental or emotional harm to a specific person or group" as part of that goal would be... a definite "wtf" moment, shall we say. it would be... illogical, captain. not least, it would be a total waste of my time to include such a sub-goal, and, even MORE importantly, such a sub-goal would actually risk destroying any possibility of completing the main goal.
when you think of it in these terms, saying to me that i've either explicitly, implicitly or otherwise "said that A Person Is Bad" and thus causing them distress - such a thing cannot possibly be the case. now, it's almost certainly the case that i don't use the right words, or that i simply missed out "the usual words" which someone else might know and use during a normal conversation: i'm simply too focussed on what i'm doing to include them.
so i'm going to great lengths, below, to make an effort to include words like "respect" - a *lot*. it took a long time to do that, and it was a major distraction, taking up almost 90 minutes to construct an appropriate response.
if we can work out a way where i don't have to spend such an enormous amount of time doing that again, in the future, i would be interested to hear some proposals.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Philip Hands phil@hands.com wrote:
all of this i should actually be able to code up myself, by redoing that initial package and making sure that there's a separate (overriding) repository with pinning on that replacement debian-archive-keyring package. means recompiling debian-installer but that's cool.
You wouldn't need to recompile anything, I suspect -- you _might_ need to replace the relevant udeb, or you can probably do some sort of (possibly somewhat disgusting) kludge via preseeding.
cooool :)
Most probably, if you have a sensible patch, it could be made into preseedable debconf variable ("fsf-endorsable-mode"?).
Of course, the fact that is an option that could be turned off means that it's not going to satisfy the people that want Debian to make it so that some of our users will be unable to use their (crappy and annoying) hardware. So, it's probably not worth bothering with.
second sentence: given that all the other forks of various distros are extremely lacklustre, seriously out-of-date with regard to security updates and actual maintenance, my feeling is that it's definitely worth tackling this. if you can get an installation of plain debian packages that's FSF-Endorseable, *great*. less effort, more modern, up-to-date and more secure.
first sentence: i don't quite follow, but let me make a guess, tell me if i'm near the mark. based on the assessment here http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2016-April/010912.html the implications are that the only hardware that a seller can get on which you can apply for a RYF Certificate is.... really old and only getting older. thus it's really annoying. so, this bit i absolutely agree with, but - not that this is what you're saying in any way - i don't see a connection to an assessement as to why anyone should not *try* (to either provide better hardware, or to work out a way to leverage vanilla debian for RYF Certification).
i'm still having difficulty parsing the first bit of the sentence: i've got a venn diagram in my head with about three or possibly four different points that you're making in the sentence, and the conditionals and negations are more than i can manage - sorry!
let me move on, then - i believe the main thing you're saying which is important is below, about the debian social contract.
Debian will not make the experience worse for those users, to no real benefit to other users, because we have a Social Contract that ensures that we will not get in the way of people that want to use our software for things that we almost certainly disagree with.
great! sounds fantastic and it's why i love debian, that the social contract is there and is basically inviolate.
Apparently some people think it's important to make Debian a tiresome experience for those that were foolish enough to no know the exact chipset that was going to be in whatever hardware they bought, and thus found that it (currently) needs its proprietary firmware uploaded.
ok. so. here's where it gets interesting, but let's answer the other paragraph first....
Of course, they think it's totally fine if the same crappy hardware has it's offensive firmware welded into a chip instead, but let's not worry about that too much, eh?
companies are finding out the hard way that that's a bad idea. of course, they're replacing it with firmware that's RSA-signed and DRM-locked - treacherous-zone for example.
but leaving all that aside, what would happen if a hardware vendor *deliberately* picked hardware *in advance* that did *NOT* require proprietary firmware and did NOT have anything that could fall foul of the usual justifications for having a nonfree section in debian?
what if the people who bought that hardware were, as a general rule, *never* going to want to install a piece of nonfree firmware in their lives, because they had had it "up to here" [insert visual image of putting hand flat, palm down, way over top of head] not with "The Usual Way That People View The FSF" but with the plain and simple irritating crap revolving around upgrades where stuff broke ALL the F******G TIME because some piece of critical proprietary firmware suddenly became incompatible or was deleted or corrupted or was removed as part of the upgrade process... a ton of reasons which we all know.
those are the people that chris serves with his business. people buy hardware from thinkpenguin because it just *damn well works*.
so. under this scenario, the likelihood of such people even ever *needing* a nonfree repository is precisely and exactly zero.
The obvious unintended consequence of making Debian tiresome for those users is that they will be driven to use Ubuntu or something even less free that does support the hardware sitting in front of them.
hooray! :) they can go away and stay on the php forums specially set up for them, where they'll leave everyone else alone. hooray! :)
Having switched away from Debian, those people will probably never worry about the non-freeness of their hardware again.
If they continue with Debian, they continue to have the chance to notice the "-nonfree" bit of the package name, and notice that there's other stuff that's cluttering up their system, and think about disabling it to see what breaks, and then maybe include that new knowledge in their next purchasing decision.
So, feel free to do whatever you are moved to do, but when you start spouting your overly-definite statements about how good or bad you think Debian is when judged on this basis, you're making the perfect the enemy of the good, and you're alienating your friends and allies while you're about it.
i appreciate that you're likely talking to a wider audience here than this one, and thank you for explaining. i assume you're referring to other people who *might* make the mistake of explicitly saying that "debian is bad because it includes non-free". certainly nobody here has made such a hypothetical statement, implicitly or explicitly.
if this discussion has given the *impression* of saying "debian is The Enemy Because It Includes Non-Free" then you are absolutely wrong. the whole idea of the EOMA projects is to bring to market a subset of available modern and continuously up-to-date hardware that simply doesn't *need* the nonfree repository of debian. nobody is saying "people are bad because of an inviolate Social Charter".
That press release is from 2014 BTW, so it's not exactly news that this issue is really not much of an issue. The way you talk about it gives the impression that Debian encourages people to use non-free software,
nobody's said anything remotely like that in these discussions.
there's a very specific subset of the venn diagram here, which is being discussed. the options are:
* hardware which requires non-free firmware vs hardware which doesn't (ever) * debian which includes the non-free archive vs when debian doesn't have the non-free archive
so to be absolutely clear: the ENTIRE segment of non-free hardware is eliminated from these discussions. that has the implication of making the non-free debian archive *REDUNDANT* but ****NOT DISRESPECTED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, BY IMPLICATION, EXPLICIT STATEMENT OR ASSUMPTION****.
we RESPECT the debian community for providing the non-free repository. we just don't need it, because it's irrelevant to the target hardware and to the target market... but to repeat: just because it's not needed, does NOT in ANY WAY imply any disrespect or any kind of "BadNess".
at this point i'm probably overstating the point, made in several different ways, but that's probably a good thing.
so, is it absolutely clear now that there is nobody who is disrespecting debian for honouring the debian social contract?
whereas Debian/Debian Developers were for instance instrumental in moving binary blobs out of the kernel, something that is a pre-requisite to being able to have a Free Software Linux system at all.
very cool.
ok.
so.
let's assume that it's been accepted that nobody is disrespecting anybody else for what they are doing. let's please also assume that NO STATEMENT EVER MADE is disrespecting anybody for anything - without making it necessary to clutter up the entire discussion with caveats and additional sentences re-stating that continuously. which i might end up doing anyway. it's tiresome to do that, so let's agree in advance that it hasn't happened, isn't happening, and isn't going to happen.
moving on.
the hardware situation is: there's no proprietary firmware required. period.
the software situation is: in debian, a nonfree repository is easy to add, and is possible - and convenient - to add by default during the installation as well as during normal operation [see preamble sentence above about not reading into this as being "disrespectful" in any way: it's just stating the facts].
the FSF situation is: they state that having non-free software on your system is detrimentally risky (because of the unknowns), therefore rather than have the users do a half-way-house risk assessment (which most people are not equipped mentally to do), they go the "whole hog".
an RYF Certification is therefore only possible if:
(a) the software source code is entirely libre, right down to power-up (boot time) of the hardware.
(b) the installation of proprietary software, whilst *NOT* prohibited, must at the very least not be made "convenient".
assessment of (b) is made on a case-by-case basis, but let's be absolutely clear, here:
(1) buying an RYF-Certified product then ripping out the OS and putting proprietary software on it is a right of the user that the FSF fully respects.
(2) buying an RYF-Certified product then installing proprietary software on a libre, RYF-Certified OS is a right of the user that the FSF fully respects.
(3) buying an RYF-Certified product, then plugging in peripherals or other hardware upgrades which REQUIRE non-free firmware is, again, a right of the user that the FSF fully respects.
in all cases, however, none of those things are the FSF's problem, nor are they the RYF-Certified product vendor's problem. note, again, however, that the word "respect" has been used above, just as it has been used in relation to the debian developers, the charter, and everything associated with debian.
so - with that in mind, and having respect for ALL parties involved, now we come to re-stating the possible scenario where the *possibility* exists for Debian to be on an RYF-Certified product (one which, as-supplied, is *defined* as having no hardware which requires proprietary firmware or software to operate).
.... this is, btw, all just a logical chain - a subset of the venn diagram of possibilities. no "disrespecting" ever even enters the discussion. "disrespect" or "emotional harm" to ANY party is NOT part of the venn diagram. it is NOT ONE OF THE GOALS. why on god's green earth anyone would wish to include "emotional harm" as an additional sub-goal in a project which furthers libre software, i really don't know - but i'm certainly not going to have people using this list to inflict harm on others.
so, taking all the requirements into account, whilst respecting all parties at the same time, the simple logical intersection and result is, quite reasonably and rationally:
(1) to modify the debian installer (perhaps by doing preseeding) so that the question "do you wish to install the nonfree archive" is simply not asked [does this disrespect anyone in debian for adding this as a possibility? no it does not]. this is to satisfy criteria (b) above, whilst also at the same time RESPECTING the Debian Charter. see below as to why.
(2) to move the nonfree archive GPG key into a separate package, which is then not installed. this again satisfies FSF criteria (b), above.
this basically satisfies and respects the both the Debian Charter and the FSF's requirements, without implying any disrespect for either. what is STILL POSSIBLE for an end-user to do is as follows:
(3) at any time, an end-user MAY still install that [hypothetical] keyring for the nonfree archive. it will be slightly inconvenient. lots of steps will be needed, such as maybe even downloading a dpkg and running as root, and following written instructions.
(4) once that package is installed, they will then need to edit /etc/apt/sources.list - by hand. this, again, will be slightly inconvenient - and to add "nonfree" to the sources.list debian archive line.
this "inconvenience" is an extra hoop which i believe would help satisfy the FSF's criteria in a respectful way whilst, critically, NOT actually preventing the end-user from doing it in the first place. and that, i believe, would mean that it also satisfies and respects the *Debian* Social Charter, because it's not actually stopped end-users from doing something that they want to do.
now, here's where we "split", should the hypothetical scenario become a reality.
* scenario (1) - this is all done independently of and without involving debian developers in any way. the debian-archive-keyring package is *replaced* with an over-ride package which simply removes the nonfree GPG key. this is the initial approach that i was considering taking, phil. discussions with debian developers aren't even on the table in this scenario! that's not being disrespectful, it's just... not needed in order to achieve the goal.
* scenario (2) - debian developers are brought into the loop. here's where it would get interesting, because a decision would need to be made about where the {hypothetical-nonfree-keyring} package would actually be kept (i.e. in which achive). i *hope* that, on assessing this, the debian developers would appreciate that the sensible place to put it would be in the nonfree repository itself, *not* in main, and that a udeb would be created which debian-installer would download explicitly if and only if the question "do you want nonfree" was ever answered "yes" during an install.
now, in scenario (2), i trust you can see clearly why the {hypothetical-nonfree-keyring} would need to go into the nonfree archive itself (because that would satisfy the FSF's "make it inconvenient but not impossible to install non-free software" requirements), and why the udeb would be needed (because that would satisfy Debian's Charter to "make it convenient and don't stand in the way of anyone doing anything with their hardware and software" requirements). once the udeb is installed, you'd have the {hypothetical} non-free GPG public key on your system [forever, unless removed], and thus it would be convenient to install nonfree packages.
*but*, what's nice is, both camps are happy and totally separate.... out of the exact same mirrors. it's just organised slightly differently. everyone - all parties - can do what they want.
sharing an insight with you, when this is laid out like this, i see no reason why this should not be viewed as a "next logical step" by the debian developers, moving on from their excellent and tireless work to move nonfree blobs out of the linux kernel.
also, it's inclusive and respectful of those people who would like to follow the FSF's advice. or, even if they don't, who just don't want any hassle, just like chris's customers, and they'd like to go one-stop shopping with someone they trust.
thoughts and insights appreciated.
l.
Hi,
(probably a mistake to add to this thread, but... hey, it's Friday).
2016-04-29 11:55 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
the hardware situation is: there's no proprietary firmware required. period.
the software situation is: in debian, a nonfree repository is easy to add, and is possible - and convenient - to add by default during the installation as well as during normal operation [see preamble sentence above about not reading into this as being "disrespectful" in any way: it's just stating the facts].
You are probably right that the FSF will not certify products with Debian enabled, but your examples are incorrect, it's not easier to install non-free software in Debian than in FSF-blessed distros. (But again, you are right that FSF might use the same examples as an excuse).
Since the alternatives that FSF recommend and bless are something like Trisquel or gNewSense, which are based on Debian (or Ubuntu?), it's similarly trivial for any user to enable non-free repositories or install non-free software directly in their hypothetical RYF-cerfitied computer with some Debian/Ubuntu-based and FSF-blessed distro -- using non-free or Ubuntu repositories directly in Trisquel/gNewSense, for example, or grabbing the packages from them and installing by hand, or even compiling from upstream's repos (I have many non-specially-savvy friends who do this).
If Trisquel/gNewSense are based on Ubuntu rather than Debian, and users go to Ubuntu's forums to get help (if their distro it's just Ubuntu with the non-free bits removed, it would be the natural place to go), and decide to enable the Ubuntu repos or others (SteamOS, ...) rather than Debian, they possibly have even more chances to use more non-free software than if they restricted themselves to Debian's non-free repos (which after all don't have lots of "non-free software" as most people understand it, e.g. proprietary games).
It's also similarly trivial for them to got to some communication application website (let's call it Spyke), see that there's a version of Spyke for Debian/Trisquel/whatever, download the .deb and install with dpkg, which all of these distros provide.
...now, for all of these cases I assume that people enabling those repositories are not mislead/tricked into installing non-free software, and that they are not idiots, which sometimes seems to me that it's the condescending view of FSF to treat Debian in that way while blessing Trisquel/gNewSense.
In your example of "synaptic", if they have to enable non-free repos explicitly, they are not doing it unknowingly. The fact that somebody may install synaptic (as in your example) already indicates that they know what they are doing and what they want to achieve.
Like Phil, I believe that the problem that users are trying to solve by installing those pieces of non-free software is that they need the firmware to enable the hardware that they have (possibly recycled from their family, not an option to buy new one), or need to use Spyke temporarily for a job interview / university application / talk to their uncle in Taiwan before arranging a visit (the alternative that the company or university are going to offer is not to use a free communication tool, but to ignore the applicant), or use some non-free software for their tax-returns (or otherwise possibly face huge fines or jail).
So in summary, if the users are conscious about the non-freeness, they will do the possible/reasonable to avoid it whether they use Debian or FSF-blessed ones; and if they don't care, they can circumvent it as easily in FSF-blessed distros and in Debian.
But again, yes, probably you will not pass RFY filter if you use Debian with that name.
an RYF Certification is therefore only possible if:
(a) the software source code is entirely libre, right down to power-up (boot time) of the hardware.
Debian is, by default.
(b) the installation of proprietary software, whilst *NOT* prohibited, must at the very least not be made "convenient".
'wget spyke*.deb && dpkg -i spyke*.deb' convenient enough in all the alternatives to Debian :-)
(even easier to install than your example with synaptic)
(2) to move the nonfree archive GPG key into a separate package, which is then not installed. this again satisfies FSF criteria (b), above.
My example above (dpkg) doesn't check gpg signatures, and it's trivial to ignore them in apt (--allow-unauthenticated) or other installation tools.
this basically satisfies and respects the both the Debian Charter and the FSF's requirements, without implying any disrespect for either. what is STILL POSSIBLE for an end-user to do is as follows:
(3) at any time, an end-user MAY still install that [hypothetical] keyring for the nonfree archive. it will be slightly inconvenient. lots of steps will be needed, such as maybe even downloading a dpkg and running as root, and following written instructions.
(4) once that package is installed, they will then need to edit /etc/apt/sources.list - by hand. this, again, will be slightly inconvenient - and to add "nonfree" to the sources.list debian archive line.
this "inconvenience" is an extra hoop which i believe would help satisfy the FSF's criteria in a respectful way whilst, critically, NOT actually preventing the end-user from doing it in the first place. and that, i believe, would mean that it also satisfies and respects the *Debian* Social Charter, because it's not actually stopped end-users from doing something that they want to do.
See above, no necessary to go through these hoops at all.
Your example of synaptic and stuff also needs running as root. dpkg is present in all-debian based systems, incl. Ubuntu and Trisquel/gNewSense, no need to install anything other than download a deb package with the browser and feed it into dpkg (plenty of instructions and recommendations to do that all over the web).
I'll stop here :)
Cheers.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montezelo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
(probably a mistake to add to this thread, but... hey, it's Friday).
no problem manuel :)
2016-04-29 11:55 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
the hardware situation is: there's no proprietary firmware required. period.
the software situation is: in debian, a nonfree repository is easy to add, and is possible - and convenient - to add by default during the installation as well as during normal operation [see preamble sentence above about not reading into this as being "disrespectful" in any way: it's just stating the facts].
You are probably right that the FSF will not certify products with Debian enabled, but your examples are incorrect, it's not easier to install non-free software in Debian than in FSF-blessed distros. (But again, you are right that FSF might use the same examples as an excuse).
please: be respectful. i don't want to hear the word "excuse" applied to anyone.
right. ok, it's important to qualify what's "easy" - easy for whom?
you and i, yes it's easy. i run fvwm2, and most of the programs i start up (including firefox) are done by opening an xterm and typing "firefox".
however it's very very important to note that when considering an RYF Certification, the FSF will do it from the perspective of an *average end-user* - not you or i. and that's a completely different analysis criteria. they will go "is it easy for my *grandma* to install non-free software with this OS on this hardware?"
Since the alternatives that FSF recommend and bless are something like Trisquel or gNewSense, which are based on Debian (or Ubuntu?),
trisquel's based on ubuntu 8.04, and hasn't moved since. gNewSense is debian, and they appear to have used debian, but went for a much more comprehensive "rebranding". i'm interested in doing the minimum required amount of work here.
it's similarly trivial for any user to enable non-free repositories or install non-free software directly in their hypothetical RYF-cerfitied computer with some Debian/Ubuntu-based and FSF-blessed distro -- using non-free or Ubuntu repositories directly in Trisquel/gNewSense, for example, or grabbing the packages from them and installing by hand, or even compiling from upstream's repos (I have many non-specially-savvy friends who do this).
cool. that's actually very useful to know... but i woudn't count even your friends as being average-end-users. think "grandma" or "busy secretary in an office". the kinds of people where, if something snowballed to a million or a hundred million end-users, the actual number of people installing non-free software would still remain well below the 0.05% mark.
where the FSF *really* has to get paranoid and concerned is if, say, the number of people using Trisquel or gNewSense and then installing non-free packages hit, say... 20% of the total number of users. if *that* happened then they'd start reconsidering.
If Trisquel/gNewSense are based on Ubuntu rather than Debian, and users go to Ubuntu's forums to get help (if their distro it's just Ubuntu with the non-free bits removed, it would be the natural place to go), and decide to enable the Ubuntu repos or others (SteamOS, ...) rather than Debian, they possibly have even more chances to use more non-free software than if they restricted themselves to Debian's non-free repos (which after all don't have lots of "non-free software" as most people understand it, e.g. proprietary games).
It's also similarly trivial for them to got to some communication application website (let's call it Spyke), see that there's a version of Spyke for Debian/Trisquel/whatever, download the .deb and install with dpkg, which all of these distros provide.
that's fine, because it's outside of the remit of the company that got the RYF Certificate. skype is *not* in a GNU repository, or in the debian repository, or in any repository at all. it's not GPG-signed by the debian team, it's certainly not GPG-signed by the FSF, so would definitely be considered to fall into the "feel free to do what you like but don't call us for tech support" category.
however: about the forums bit - yes, that's a risk that they'd just have to take, and in some ways it's good that gNewSense uses debian already, because it's set the precedent.
...now, for all of these cases I assume that people enabling those repositories are not mislead/tricked into installing non-free software, and that they are not idiots, which sometimes seems to me that it's the condescending view of FSF to treat Debian in that way while blessing Trisquel/gNewSense.
there's a level of separation between Trisquel/gNewSense and the original debian and ubuntu, in terms of them being entirely separate web sites, as well as having people have to jump through "unofficial hoops", and separate archive mirrors which are again, on a totally different domain name.
i don't really like to use the words "idiots" - let's call them "average end-users" instead (examples include "grandma" or "busy secretary" or "7-year-old" or "49-year-old farm mechanic and cattle breeder")
average end-users simply cannot cope with the "jumping through hoops" - they haven't got time. if they really need to, they'll go buy a windows PC. or a mac. and that's fine. we're not catering to them, and neither is the FSF.
In your example of "synaptic", if they have to enable non-free repos explicitly, they are not doing it unknowingly. The fact that somebody may install synaptic (as in your example) already indicates that they know what they are doing and what they want to achieve.
given that you're not making the distinction between "competent people capable of and having the time to follow clear instructions" and "average end user", i believe that the point you make here is referring to the former category only, so would not apply.
Like Phil, I believe that the problem that users are trying to solve by installing those pieces of non-free software is that they need the firmware to enable the hardware that they have (possibly recycled from their family, not an option to buy new one), or need to use Spyke temporarily for a job interview / university application / talk to their uncle in Taiwan before arranging a visit (the alternative that the company or university are going to offer is not to use a free communication tool, but to ignore the applicant), or use some non-free software for their tax-returns (or otherwise possibly face huge fines or jail).
that's fine: we are not catering to, targetting, or in any way interested in selling to such users. so apart from mentioning such users as an aside, it is not necessary to include such people in any plans.
So in summary, if the users are conscious about the non-freeness, they will do the possible/reasonable to avoid it whether they use Debian or FSF-blessed ones; and if they don't care, they can circumvent it as easily in FSF-blessed distros and in Debian.
again: you haven't specified the ability or the amount of time that "they" have, in this paragraph. see above.
But again, yes, probably you will not pass RFY filter if you use Debian with that name.
again: this is a follow-on conclusion from a set of criteria that were not clearly expressed.
an RYF Certification is therefore only possible if:
(a) the software source code is entirely libre, right down to power-up (boot time) of the hardware.
Debian is, by default.
(b) the installation of proprietary software, whilst *NOT* prohibited, must at the very least not be made "convenient".
'wget spyke*.deb && dpkg -i spyke*.deb' convenient enough in all the alternatives to Debian :-)
(even easier to install than your example with synaptic)
again: you're assuming that the person is competent enough to work that out on their own. you are competent to do that: i am competent to do that. your _friends_ are competent to do that. however we are specifically talking about the people who are *ACTIVELY AFRAID* to run a command prompt, or are otherwise extremely irritated or annoyed to have to contemplate it, or just plain haven't got a clue what a "command" is, let alone a "prompt".
do you understand and appreciate the difference, here?
(2) to move the nonfree archive GPG key into a separate package, which is then not installed. this again satisfies FSF criteria (b), above.
My example above (dpkg) doesn't check gpg signatures, and it's trivial to ignore them in apt (--allow-unauthenticated) or other installation tools.
again, you are talking about people who are competent with and not afraid of typing commands in case they do harm to their computer and lose all their files by doing something that they have *no idea* of the consequences.
they see the words, but it is completely meaningless to them. the only reason i can get my non-technical friend to type commands over the phone (which takes an hour out of my day) is because i've known him all my life, and he trusts me. without my help he'd be absolutely stuffed. he's a plumbing and mechanical engineer.
you - and your friends - have the ability to logically deduce meaning from results. most people in the world have *absolutely no clue*, and absolutely no faith in computers. viruses have stolen their bank account contents: why should they *ever* trust computers.... and you're talking about running a *command*????
no.
think at their level, from the perspective of someone with zero knowledge. *that's* whom we have to consider. you and i - and your friends - are extremely lucky, believe me.
this basically satisfies and respects the both the Debian Charter and the FSF's requirements, without implying any disrespect for either. what is STILL POSSIBLE for an end-user to do is as follows:
(3) at any time, an end-user MAY still install that [hypothetical] keyring for the nonfree archive. it will be slightly inconvenient. lots of steps will be needed, such as maybe even downloading a dpkg and running as root, and following written instructions.
(4) once that package is installed, they will then need to edit /etc/apt/sources.list - by hand. this, again, will be slightly inconvenient - and to add "nonfree" to the sources.list debian archive line.
this "inconvenience" is an extra hoop which i believe would help satisfy the FSF's criteria in a respectful way whilst, critically, NOT actually preventing the end-user from doing it in the first place. and that, i believe, would mean that it also satisfies and respects the *Debian* Social Charter, because it's not actually stopped end-users from doing something that they want to do.
See above, no necessary to go through these hoops at all.
if the entire world of computing users were as competent as you, i and your friends, you would be absolutely right.
Your example of synaptic and stuff also needs running as root.
for the average person, that's total shit-scared pants-wetting territory. it's where, on windows, you hear about how viruses get "Admin". in the minds of the average end-user, it's a massive barrier, just from all the bad publicity from windows and now macs which get hit by phishing attacks and so on.
have you ever installed GNU/Linux on a windows user's computer? i did so for one person. coincidentally, their daughter had visited during that week. a virus attack destroyed the windows partition because their daughter had brought in a virus on a memory stick. the blame for destroying the OS was placed firmly on the installation of Debian GNU/Linux. this was even after their son patiently explained to them in non-technical terms that it was flat-out impossible to occur, which the father completely ignored. so, ironically, rather than use the Debian GNU/Linux installation to carry on using the hardware, they went without any computing resources for over a week.
this type of faulty logical reasoning is rampant amongst non-technical people. they *genuinely* believe that it is their fault when something goes wrong, so are completely afraid to do anything - to experiment, to tinker and to step outside of the box.
and who can blame them when they've been conditioned by decades of abuse from mass-volume monoculture software weaknesses?
so yes. *please* think from the perspective of the target audience - average end-users - not from your own personal perspective of technical expertise. i see that mistake being made a lot here on this list.
l.
On Friday 29. April 2016 15.21.12 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
Since the alternatives that FSF recommend and bless are something like Trisquel or gNewSense, which are based on Debian (or Ubuntu?),
trisquel's based on ubuntu 8.04, and hasn't moved since. gNewSense is debian, and they appear to have used debian, but went for a much more comprehensive "rebranding". i'm interested in doing the minimum required amount of work here.
I think it's easy to go round in circles here when the FSF's own guidelines can instruct us and help explain why these separately-branded distributions exist. I hope the FSF doesn't mind me quoting from their document. ;-)
On branding and naming:
"We will not list a distribution whose name makes confusion with nonfree distributions likely. For example, if Foobar Light is a free distribution and Foobar is a nonfree distribution, we will not list Foobar Light."
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#name- confusion
So, if Debian is "nonfree" (let us not get into why or how they might reach that conclusion), then you won't get a Debian-branded certified distro.
----
On using non-free software:
"What would be unacceptable is for the documentation to give people instructions for installing a nonfree program on the system, or mention conveniences they might gain by doing so."
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution- guidelines.html#documentation
So, again, the problem might be that since Debian documentation, such as the Debian Wiki which bears an increasing amount of responsibility for documenting the distribution, mentions how to install non-free software, this might count against Debian itself being regarded as a certified distro. They do mention this, though:
"For a borderline case, a clear and serious exhortation not to use the nonfree program would move it to the acceptable side of the line."
I guess this would require editorial practices not currently undertaken plus some discipline from people contributing to the documentation.
----
On providing non-free software:
"The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs."
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#license- rules
This is the big obstacle. I suppose Trisquel and gNewSense get around this by hosting their own repositories and not hosting the non-free ones.
----
I can understand why the FSF wants to help users avoid the slippery slope of doing what random people on the Internet suggest, enabling various repositories for a quick fix when some proprietary service doesn't work, and then seeing those people fill their systems with dubious and potentially stability-damaging software, not to mention that it would be non-free and could have negative effects on their freedoms and, through network effects, on others' freedoms.
However, the tone of the guidance, although it isn't for end-users, isn't exactly positive nor does it give the impression of encouraging choice. Of course, words are not going to be wasted on saying that it is quite alright to encourage people to install Free Software from third-party repositories, but it's easy to come away with the idea that such a policy is restrictive.
What worries me the most is the burden that might be created. Although licensing requirements have been refined over the years so that it might be possible to avoid hosting everything yourself (thinking back to the whole Mepis Linux case where people were being sent to Ubuntu to get the sources), the provisioning required to host a complete distribution is not something to be taken lightly, even if the tooling probably isn't that bad for people with experience of it already.
The result might be that if anyone does try and pitch a certified distro, it ends up being a small one that doesn't offer the breadth of something like Debian because of the magnitude of the diversion from whatever goal the people doing it originally had. In this case, how much effort should be diverted away from getting the hardware and software done towards rebranding, repacking and hosting something that is essentially Debian?
I really think that the different parties should just get together and develop a reasonable understanding around these matters based on the substantial level of agreement they probably already have.
Paul
hi paul thanks for chipping in... and also for changing the subject to something sensible. brief comments below. btw yes i have already referred people in the FSF (as part of working out how to apply for RYF Certification) to this discussion, and also remember, archives are forever and completely public and open to anybody, so please everybody, be respectful and always assume the best intentions on part of contributors to the discussion.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
"We will not list a distribution whose name makes confusion with nonfree distributions likely. For example, if Foobar Light is a free distribution and Foobar is a nonfree distribution, we will not list Foobar Light."
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#name- confusion
So, if Debian is "nonfree" (let us not get into why or how they might reach that conclusion), then you won't get a Debian-branded certified distro.
ok so that explains why distros create separate web sites.
On providing non-free software:
"The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs."
so, if someone creates *third party* recipies - not hosted on the main web site - then that's absolutely fine, which explains why so many people wonder why it's quotes ok quotes to add foreign repositories.
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#license- rules
This is the big obstacle. I suppose Trisquel and gNewSense get around this by hosting their own repositories and not hosting the non-free ones.
pretty much, yeah. which explains why they're old, as it's a hell of a lot of work. arch-linux is slightly different.
What worries me the most is the burden that might be created.
well, the idea that occurred to me was to have a separate (minimalist) repository of "forked" packages, and to have those as overrides (pinned priorities) but otherwise include the standard debian line in /etc/apt/sources.list.
the next phase on from that - if it's not even acceptable to do that - would be, yes, to mirror only the free packages from debian (across all architectures. this is a cross-architecture project, after all).
i would not, of course, be mirroring the debian wiki with its documentation and references to non-free software.
l.
Hi,
2016-04-29 15:03 Paul Boddie:
On Friday 29. April 2016 15.21.12 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
Since the alternatives that FSF recommend and bless are something like Trisquel or gNewSense, which are based on Debian (or Ubuntu?),
trisquel's based on ubuntu 8.04, and hasn't moved since. gNewSense is debian, and they appear to have used debian, but went for a much more comprehensive "rebranding". i'm interested in doing the minimum required amount of work here.
I think it's easy to go round in circles here when the FSF's own guidelines can instruct us and help explain why these separately-branded distributions exist. I hope the FSF doesn't mind me quoting from their document. ;-)
I know the reasons, but I don't agree with them and think that they are misguided and actively harmful in this area.
Which is a shame, because in general I align 100% with the principles of the FSF, as many other people in Debian do.
( Yes, I know that this is futile to resolve here, just wanted to refute some of Luke's points about being difficult to install non-free software in FSF-certified distros.
BTW, I forgot to say that apt-1.1 and gdebi both install and resolve dependencies of local files, so they're even more convenient to use than dpkg for this purpose. Probably package-kit-based front-ends and other higher level tools used from desktops --which I am pretty sure that are also present in Trisquel and gNewSense-- make the process easy as well ).
On branding and naming:
"We will not list a distribution whose name makes confusion with nonfree distributions likely. For example, if Foobar Light is a free distribution and Foobar is a nonfree distribution, we will not list Foobar Light."
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#name- confusion
So, if Debian is "nonfree" (let us not get into why or how they might reach that conclusion), then you won't get a Debian-branded certified distro.
This is FSF's objection about Debian:
============================================ http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
(3 paragraphs)
#1: "Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system. However, Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According to the project, this software is “not part of the Debian system,” but the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can readily find these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database and its wiki." ============================================
(Funnily enough, many "non-free packages" in non-free is documentation for GNU software. I am very happy that we host those in Debian, even if they are "non-free", and I believe that it's a good service for Debian users.)
Repository names, URLs and the section to which the packages belong (shown in many tools) are clearly labeled as "non-free". Any person who wants to be careful installing such packages has enough hints to indicate that s/he's installing something "non-free" because of some specific aspect, and study it carefully (which still, its not being a full "app store" full of proprietary apps, in any case).
Considering that these are not enough warnings is IMO condescending towards those users, be them "grandma" (condescending and disrespectful term for old women, BTW), 7 year-olds, or tech users. And it's not true that it's more challenging for any user, tech-savvy or not, to enable/install non-free software in Trisquel or gNewSense *compared to* Debian.
Besides, there are many opportunities outside the package system to install non-free software, e.g. plug-ins for many applications. I don't think that in Trisquel/gNewSense most of those cases are either prevented by the applications or that the users get a big warning if they try to install plugins, or that they don't work if they follow the documentation provided with the package and shipped in the distro, or recommended in their own forums (4th post):
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/say-goodbye-npapi
Whether they are hosted or not by the distribution is not very important in the end, end-users don't even know where they come from (esp. if URL is not visible). Maybe they assume that plugins for all the tools come from the distro, when in fact they don't, which is *worse* than when they decide to install a package on the system coming from controlled repositories such as Debian's (even if it's the "non-free" one).
To make matters worse, in 2016 it is perfectly possible to use the browser or a messaging program to use with non-free services, many selling your data; play non-free-games; emulate DOS or MAME machines within the browser; or or visit websites with non-free JS; or many other problems that FSF is rightly concerned about. The distro is not the biggest channel through which these "dangers" come, but the network, which is the same for all distros.
So I think the position of the FSF is hypocritical in this respect, but specially shortsighted / outdated / ineffective, and focusing on trivia while ignoring big and relevant problems.
============================================ #2: "There is also a “contrib” repository; its packages are free, but some of them exist to load separately distributed proprietary programs. This too is not thoroughly separated from the main Debian distribution." ============================================
RMS famously believes that it's not crucial if games have non-free data, and one of the links that you post below says:
"It does not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment".
Well, this is one of the cases for "contrib": if the game engine is free but requires non-free data, goes to "contrib"; if it can be used with fully-free data goes to the "main" archive.
============================================ #3: "Previous releases of Debian included nonfree blobs with Linux, the kernel. With the release of Debian 6.0 (“squeeze”) in February 2011, these blobs have been moved out of the main distribution to separate packages in the nonfree repository. However, the problem partly remains: the installer in some cases recommends these nonfree firmware files for the peripherals on the machine." ============================================
Since the users are warned about the non-freeness of the firmware, they can make their own choice. In some cases the firmware is necessary for their machines to work correctly (incl. updates to the microcode of the processor, unfortunately), in other cases they can opt-out of using the firmware and using a wifi-dongle instead which operates without or with free firmware, for example.
In the majority of cases, users (tech-savvy or not) are better off if the updates to such carefully controlled and very limited set of packages come through Debian than if they have to chase them up around the net from multiple vendors and websites.
But in any case, the warnings are there, so the FSF position on this is unnecessarily condescending.
And given that GNU started off and still actively supports their packages working on non-free systems, I cannot see what's the fundamental difference by which is bad for Debian to enable the use of free software in non-free hardware but good for GNU to support Solaris or Windows, for example, and create proprietary executables and enable other non-free software, and continue/extend its use by virtue of the network effects. The reason for LGPL it's "strategic", in the case of Debian doing the same is bad. Hum, double standards.
On using non-free software:
"What would be unacceptable is for the documentation to give people instructions for installing a nonfree program on the system, or mention conveniences they might gain by doing so."
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution- guidelines.html#documentation
So, again, the problem might be that since Debian documentation, such as the Debian Wiki which bears an increasing amount of responsibility for documenting the distribution, mentions how to install non-free software, this might count against Debian itself being regarded as a certified distro. They do mention this, though:
"For a borderline case, a clear and serious exhortation not to use the nonfree program would move it to the acceptable side of the line."
I guess this would require editorial practices not currently undertaken plus some discipline from people contributing to the documentation.
I think that it would be much more easy/productive to go and edit the Debian wiki in those cases than create full distributions, and that the Debian people would even be grateful.
Otherwise, I don't follow every corner of the wiki, but there are many cases already with the big warnings:
Compare with (not the only one):
https://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang
"Software for viewing YouTube videos" (non-free service), "Java" (with some bits of the stack problematic for many years, I don't know lately), or Mozilla which allows non-free add-ons and codecs, and the page (sanctioned by FSF staff, not even volunteers) without any warning at all that these can harm your freedom.
On providing non-free software:
"The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs."
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#license- rules
This is the big obstacle. I suppose Trisquel and gNewSense get around this by hosting their own repositories and not hosting the non-free ones.
Which is probably ineffective with the case of program's plugins, for example; and it glosses over the fact that users sometimes will be forced to find their way to install what they need with very suboptimal consequences because the whole computer will not work otherwise.
BTW, the FSF recommend F-Droid (of which I am very happy user and donator) even if they contain many apps that can solely be used with non-free services (e.g. Telegram) and are not separated in different repos or are not difficult to enable:
http://www.fsf.org/working-together/next-steps/free-software-for-android
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/android-market-has-drm-too
or an interview, without asking/mentioning anything about non-free services:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/interview-with-ciaran-gultnieks-of-f-dro...
So I don't understand why it's more problematic to enable non-free for firmware that your processor needs to operate, or non-free data for a game, than to install a program that can only be used to access non-free services or share your data.
I can understand why the FSF wants to help users avoid the slippery slope of doing what random people on the Internet suggest, enabling various repositories for a quick fix when some proprietary service doesn't work, and then seeing those people fill their systems with dubious and potentially stability-damaging software, not to mention that it would be non-free and could have negative effects on their freedoms and, through network effects, on others' freedoms.
I agree, and that's exactly one of the things that Debian non-free repos achieve: to have a central place where key pieces that many people will need with today's state of hardware and things, and which is in general much safer than any other 3rd party repos.
If the users installing Trisquel or gNewSense need those non-free bits for any reason, they would be better off from any point of view if they enable the non-free repos provided by Debian (or if they had installed Debian in the first place). The alternative, which is to go to Intel's/nvidia/broadcom/whatever website, is much worse in most cases.
The result might be that if anyone does try and pitch a certified distro, it ends up being a small one that doesn't offer the breadth of something like Debian because of the magnitude of the diversion from whatever goal the people doing it originally had. In this case, how much effort should be diverted away from getting the hardware and software done towards rebranding, repacking and hosting something that is essentially Debian?
My reply to this question is clear: acknowledging that the information and separation in Debian is enough, move on, and try to spend the energies in solving the real problems, e.g. supporting free hardware initiatives :)
Since things like de-blobbing the kernel (as Phil pointed out) come from Debian people, the existence of Debian is a great positive for free-software-loving users, and the only reason why derivatives as those blessed by FSF can even exist.
So I always find this hostility towards Debian very unnecessary and annoying (as it can be gauged by the length of my reply :P).
I really think that the different parties should just get together and develop a reasonable understanding around these matters based on the substantial level of agreement they probably already have.
There are people trying actively to resolve this, and John Sullivan (exec director) is a Debian Developer and participated in the last 2 DebConfs with talks related with this.
But I feel that the historical decisions that made them not recommend Debian are holding them in the same position, while they obviate the same problems when applied to new things like F-Droid and the same practical problems with Trisquel and gNewSense, or their own software packages.
Cheers.
On 2016-04-29 at 14:21:12 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
that's fine, because it's outside of the remit of the company that got the RYF Certificate. skype is *not* in a GNU repository, or in the debian repository, or in any repository at all. it's not
actually, skype is in one ubuntu repository, which if I'm not mistaken at least trisquel users could add
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Skype
3rd party repositories for other proprietary software are often available and adding them usually requires just about the same level of tech-expertise as adding non-free to debian (or to gNewSense).
i don't really like to use the words "idiots" - let's call them "average end-users" instead (examples include "grandma" or "busy secretary" or "7-year-old" or "49-year-old farm mechanic and cattle breeder")
actually, 'grandma' tends to be quite discriminatory and offensive, considering that a woman can easily be of grandma age and still be an IT professional (probably near retirement, but not necessarily).
average end-users simply cannot cope with the "jumping through hoops"
- they haven't got time. if they really need to, they'll go buy a
windows PC. or a mac. and that's fine. we're not catering to them, and neither is the FSF.
so it is fine for anybody who is not a tech expert to be forced to buy a mainstream spying device, while software freedom is just for people who can afford spending their time jumping through hoops?
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valhalla@gmail.com wrote:
On 2016-04-29 at 14:21:12 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
that's fine, because it's outside of the remit of the company that got the RYF Certificate. skype is *not* in a GNU repository, or in the debian repository, or in any repository at all. it's not
actually, skype is in one ubuntu repository, which if I'm not mistaken at least trisquel users could add
sounds about right.
3rd party repositories for other proprietary software are often available and adding them usually requires just about the same level of tech-expertise as adding non-free to debian (or to gNewSense).
exactly. and i'm counting on exactly that. in order to receive its Certification, gNewSense will have had to have done something pretty much exactly as [either of] Scenario (1) or (2) - it's just that they will have also gone a bit further and added some "branding" packages (logos, etc.)
i don't really like to use the words "idiots" - let's call them "average end-users" instead (examples include "grandma" or "busy secretary" or "7-year-old" or "49-year-old farm mechanic and cattle breeder")
actually, 'grandma' tends to be quite discriminatory and offensive, considering that a woman can easily be of grandma age and still be an IT professional (probably near retirement, but not necessarily).
then increase the age in your mind sufficiently so that the age avoids any such discrimination and offense, and/or qualify the word in such a way so that it excludes technically-competent people. i trust that you understand that. being now 46 i forget sometimes that my grandma was about 70 when i was 10. if she was still alive there's no way she would cope with a libre operating system, let alone an FSF-Endorseable one.
if you know of an appropriate word which describes people who are of the 1930s to 1950s generation, for whom technology is sheer bewilderment instead of a joy, please do let me know what that word is. otherwise, please assume that that is what is meant, and, without prejudice or offense, adjust your mindset and focus to accommodate that, without creating a distraction from the goal [see below].
average end-users simply cannot cope with the "jumping through hoops"
- they haven't got time. if they really need to, they'll go buy a
windows PC. or a mac. and that's fine. we're not catering to them, and neither is the FSF.
so it is fine for anybody who is not a tech expert to be forced to buy a mainstream spying device, while software freedom is just for people who can afford spending their time jumping through hoops?
i'm having difficulty understanding the question - i can't parse it properly - as it covers too many topics at once in a single sentence, and, more than that, i don't follow its purpose or the motivation for asking it.
the goal is to see brought into existence a modern, secure, minimum-maintenance FSF-Endorseable OS that covers a wide range of architectures, so that EOMA68 products can be sold and be upgraded over the next 10-15 years seamlessly with a minimum amount of fuss by either the technical individuals maintaining EOMA68 products, or the end-users themselves, regardless of the underlying hardware architecture that is available now or in the future.
would answering your question help or hinder that goal? would it be time well spent to pursue answering it?
if you can clarify your question, and/or explain to me how an answer to your question would specifically - and exclusively - assist and further that specific goal (and not introduce any scope-creep in that goal), i'll be happy to answer it. would that be ok with you? if i don't hear from you i'll assume "no" and i trust that's also okay.
we have limited resources and time, and we have to start somewhere. the focus therefore has to be quite specific, and to begin at a leverage-point that can be expanded later on to cover much more than is currently being tackled.
i trust that you understand that, and are fine with having to keep to a very narrow initial and achievable focus at this exact moment in time.
l.
2016-04-29 14:21 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
Your example of synaptic and stuff also needs running as root.
[...] this type of faulty logical reasoning is rampant amongst non-technical people. they *genuinely* believe that it is their fault when something goes wrong, so are completely afraid to do anything - to experiment, to tinker and to step outside of the box.
Well, that was kind of my point.
To enable non-free repos in Debian throught synaptic or whatever way that you want, you need root, and many people will not do this [1], neither in FSF-blessed distros nor in Debian.
But then, if one dares to use root and install files locally, or add repo locations and so on, it can be done as easily in Debian as in Trisquel/gNewSense -- just following a clear 3 step instruction in a website, and that's it [2].
FSF considers that Debian enables people to use non-free software too easily, even if it only happens when:
a) one installs the distribution in the device for the first time and *decides* to enable non-free repos -- which people with pre-installed devices will not do
b) or after that, when one *knowingly* (and as "root") enables Debian's clearly labeled "non-free" for some reason (or worse, 3rd party repos), containing non-free software -- which is also possible and as easy to do in FSF-blessed distros
c) or the many other cases explained in [2] -- no difference with FSF-blessed distros
So, as far as I can tell, the users are not mislead into using free software when using Debian compared to FSF-blessed distros, or collections of software like F-Droid that they do recommend.
But it's true that probably you will *not* get RYF badges if you decide to use Debian as is.
(I think that it's worth asking them, though, perhaps they can be persued if it's preinstalled with "non-free" disabled).
[1] There are stats flying around about percentage of people who root their phones being higher than 20%. Even if I find it hard to believe, I think that it's much higher than fractions of 1% as you believe.
[2] Or use the browser, or qemu, or wine, to run non-free programs; or install non-free add-ons; or all the other cases explained in the reply to Paul's email.
Cheers.
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
Elena ``of Valhalla'' -
Hrvoje Lasic -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo -
Paul Boddie -
Philip Hands