[jacquesm]

That and the simple fact that without it the hardware you've invested in won't work. So this is very much an individual choice, if you don't have such hardware you are fine but shouldn't be voting on whether or not someone who does have hardware that won't work without proprietary blobs has to go out to buy new gear. There are all kinds of considerations that go in to this decision (for instance: environmental impact) and I'm all for compromise when it helps out others.

At the same time, you have a good point, these decisions are difficult and need to be very carefully weighted. Debian and RedHat are the two distributions that everybody else always ends up following so a major departure from established policy there has potentially huge impact downstream.

[enriquto]

> the simple fact that without it the hardware you've invested in won't work

How is that different from the "if you want to run linux don't buy a winmodem" that we said convincingly twenty years ago ? Would you have approved that linux 2.0 added binary blobs to the kernel in order to correctly work with the hardware that you had invested in (some random winmodem) ?

[jacquesm]

Winmodems had plenty of alternatives, for PCs the choice is usually limited to 'what you were given' or 'what you recycled from a dumpster'. Linux is typically not the first OS to be installed on any given piece of hardware (even if brand new plenty of people pay either the MS or the Apple tax). And because those are exactly the people that benefit from having a working PC I'm all for maximizing their chances. Choice is a luxury.

[Karellen]

> Linux is typically not the first OS to be installed on any given piece of hardware. And because those are exactly the people that benefit from having a working PC I'm all for maximizing their chances. Choice is a luxury.

But they don't have to choose Debian.

If Debian had maintained a strict "Free" stance, people could still use their troublesome hardware out-of-the-box simply by picking another distro that did include non-Free firmware in the installer. There are plenty of them. Like, 99% of all other distros.

Not all distros have to be everything to everyone. It's OK to have a niche.

[realitythreek]

> If Debian had maintained a strict "Free" stance, people could still use their troublesome hardware out-of-the-box simply by picking another distro that did include non-Free firmware in the installer.

This isn’t Debian’s niche though. Like many distros, Debian came with the free repos configured by default, but its had non-free packages available forever and they already had a non-free installation iso hidden away. The line had been crossed forever ago. Now it’s just a friendlier experience.

This is a good thing.

[Karellen]

> This isn’t Debian’s niche though.

Point 1 of the Social Contract[0] is literally "Debian will remain 100% Free"

Please explain how championing Software Freedom would not be Debian's niche.

[0] https://www.debian.org/social_contract

[jacquesm]

You are entirely free to use the narrow FOSS interpreted distribution. And other people are just as free to use the ones that include the blobs they need to get their hardware to work where there is no alternative available. And hopefully over time all of those blobs will go the way of the Dodo, but in the meantime Debian keeps mind and marketshare, which unlike absolutist stances are just as important to the long term survival of the distribution as is the core philosophy.

Because you wouldn't be pushing those users to an alternative linux distro, you'd be pushing them to Apple and Windows and that's far more damaging to FOSS than to include some firmware blobs. The issue was debated at considerable length, I've followed the debate (because I use Debian and Debian derived distros on all of my machines, including laptops, servers and desktops) and I'm happy to see this outcome because it shows a certain level of maturity. The world isn't easily defined in terms of black and white. Debian is doing a great job and this minor concession is only going to strengthen its position as the FOSS distro of choice because more people will end up being able to use it successfully.

Note that far more people care about whether or not a distro works on their machine than whatever narrow reading of 'The Word' causes it to malfunction. Builders are few, consumers are many and I'd much rather see Debian succeed in the long term than die on the hill of FOSS purism.

[realitythreek]

I already did explain. You stopped reading after the first sentence. :)

[jacquesm]

Fortunately Debian recognized that being a 'niche' would sooner or later spell the end of Debian and that would be a loss.

[bayindirh]

When you are one of the biggest “root” distributions, and the template of countless big and small time derivatives, you don’t have the luxury to have niche.

When thought with a clear and unbiased mind, Debian did the absolute best they can do.

Add firmware, be open about it, install only when necessary, allow people to opt out when they know what they are doing.

[nunesvn]

We’re on the laptop age, most people can’t pick and choose the components of their computers.

[boricj]

Usually, people first buy a computer and then hear about Linux later, not the other way around.

[5e92cb50239222b]

It's also close to impossible to choose fully Linux-compatible hardware for some of us. Whatever decent Thinkpads there are left are practically unavailable in my country, unless you're willing to buy from foreign sellers without any warranty and pay hundreds of dollars for shipping. Things like Framework are completely unavailable and probably will be for the foreseeable future. I use desktops exclusively so I can pick and choose, but I am in the minority of a minority.