Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 35 |
Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
Uptime: | 36:10:57 |
Calls: | 331 |
Files: | 988 |
Messages: | 107,915 |
Right, in the sense that they embed non-free software in the hardware.
None of those machines require them to be loaded by me as a user for
them to be useful to me.
This distinction is important to me.
For me there are several reasons for wanting this, which ought to be >understandable for anyone reading this thread.
The supply-chain
security trust concern of non-free firmware is a hot topic right now.
It is fine to disagree that these are concerns worthy spending time on
within the Debian project, which is my perception of the vote outcome.
Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> writes:
I still haven't heard arguments why people refuse to use an installer
that comes with non-free firmware, asks whether this firmware should
be used, and if answered "no", none of this non-free firmware ends up
in the installed system. The resulting system is free regardless
whether there was non-free firmware on the installation images.
https://www.gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html >https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/install-fest-devil.html
.... in a Salsa pipeline, and that seems to be a 5-10GB
artifact unless my math is off.