The first, the package server was already clarified in a post made by cannonical but still their server is propietary.

I don’t use it because it has a nonFree server side and is centralized.

GitHub is propietary software (which goes agaisnt this community).

GitLab.com instance runs GitLab Enterprise Edition which is propietary. TeDoMun offers an instance using the Community Edition which is FLOSS.

I would recommend SourceHut (sr.ht) or Gitea (codeberg.org, git.disroot.org, etc)

I am one of the people who reacted a while after the issue was opened.

deleted by creator

It is okay then :3

I think you don’t understand what is even an inalienable interest, a right and which are the rights violated here. Yes, there is damage, in freedom.

There is no rare thing for hardware in H-Node working. I would like you to check it and availability. It is less, but it is not a rare case.

The option may exists based on such a list and any of the both sides would be affected negatively. In the same way it saves you time or impossibility in some cases, it would prevent my rights being harmed and save my time yet.

It would involve an initial effort in development, that is right. This would also help more for these rights that failing in the way is doing right now.

Rewording this:

A proposal I would accept is loading based in H-Node list to know if it works with it or not (a similar thing has been done with Linux-Libre but for enforcing not loading it). I would accept that, and I would give the option at boot time itself.

regardless of what some ideological demagogues say

I never pointed to you with ad hominems. Refrain to do that next time.

It is not my fault that you think that I am backed or not by some people like that, nor I should be the victim for such a case.

poVoq, I already explained how that works. Almost all the hardware can load it and it is done automatically, not based on an H-Node list to know if it works without it or not, which could be an option. If it is available, will be loaded and executed with compatible hardware.

Debian doesn’t have the fault for what the hardware vendors do, but has the fault for enforcing the situation when other options existed.

Including some optional firmwares in the install boot-medium infringes zero rights of yours and none of the 4 software freedoms are impacted by this.

Loading at boot time the firmware involves execution in applied hardware of software I have no power in.

Complain with the hardware vendors for making these firmwares a requirement if you will, but better not buy such hardware in the first place.

Doesn’t exclude that Debian did the worse thing. Options existed as I introduced before, and very obvious ones. If they needed help, I have no issues to provide it.

you are free to revert any such non-Free firmware

That is not how granting a right works. Damage of it is already made and no, there is no such thing as rare cases.

Additionally, the big part of the hardware in H-Node has non-free firmware available in the respective package, also embedded on boot.

First of all, thank you for the clarification.

Related to the inclusion of the installer, that is not what they meant AFAIK. The idea is loading and executing it when applicable, even if it is not needed (RTL 8188EE is an example) as was discussed previously in other voting or mailing list which I need to check.

Edited: it is also supported because, in offers to load the firmware, you must do it at boot time for the initialization of the hardware.

If you think I am throwing a RTFM I think you are not even reading the first part of my comment. So, in order to understand me correctly, I recommend you to read it carefully part by part.

I don’t see how the second parragraph applies wrongly here.

About your edition, I am unsure if you understand how rights exist. A right, or mostly a natural right while not being guaranteed, is deducible from inalienable interests. These are interests born of aware individuals and are as basic as “I need to eat”.

In this digital world, other inalienable interests are born, and new rights deduced from them. The “4 freedoms” about the software are no more than a build of these rights in the same way the letter of the human rights try to do the same. That is all, no more complex than that.

Rights are also not based on claim. An individual should not claim every time they want their right guaranteed, that is plainly impossible with all individuals. Rights are guaranteed first and get available even before you need them.

By loading, trying and executing propietary software in the devices I use you are violating these rights.

There are manufacturers doing that? Sure. That makes my fight useless because I already could have that being executed? No and pointing to that is a Nirvana fallacy itself: “as you are in shit, doesn’t matter what you do because everything would be like that”.

First, you confuse firmware with drivers.

Second, I am annoyed because I see this as a lack of respect for my digital rights. There was option to maintain both images or showing visibility to the other one.

Third, projects such as H-Node show that integration and help with the ecosystem could have worked by showing compatible hardware in first hand.

Forth, Debian was never for newbies and not for that, but because people don’t read manuals. A different aproach would have been educational promotion of the existing Debian manuals before even downloading and even focusing on usability and accesibility to them. Maybe even creating simple English version or a reduced set by chapters.

Fifth, any user should know which hardware is using and get familiar with it. The out of the box concept many people promote leads to the believe of black boxes as solution. A mixed approach is also an option by using H-Node for example.

This could have contributed to the following:

• showing visibility to other projects working towards getting hardware work with free software.
• helping new users to find such a hardware instead of falling in the fallacy of “If you don’t see it, it doesn’t exist”.
• contributing to the digital illiteracy lacked by even medium range users of GNU/Linux family and almost all in a general sense using a computer.
• respecting the digital rights of people instead of making a false declaration of failure.
• this also derivates in being example for other projects towards getting or developing free software used in hardware such as firmware.
• you still fit the purposes of the other part by setting the additional image in the most needed cases.

Can you point to the new version.

I see that this is the 2004 one and I don’t find a way to see the new version that is supposed to be mentioned here.

At least, I didn’t find it with a quick search with C-f and some links attached.

Edited: Ah, the information is in the mailing list yet.

In some places, such as Cuba, people make their own Debian mirrors.

General guide is in https://www.debian.org/mirror/ftpmirror and there are more instructions in the general script used.

Then you can point your /etc/apt/sources.list to it.

Another option, suggested in other comments, is downloading *.deb files manually for each package and dependency and performing an installation with dpkg -i package.deb.

In a more specific approach, you have https://wiki.debian.org/DebianRepository/Setup.

Do you remember when you install a new Debian system and you can get packages from the CD ROM or USB stick? Debian can point to a repository in physical media, including a directory.

Generally, you can sync a hard drive with it outside with one of the tools available for this in this last wiki page, attach it to your puter when you arrive at home and party.

Sounds good, so people who still rely on these devices like me can get it working perfectly without breaking.

The great thing is that deduplication would also be built-in with the IPFS layer, apart of the obvious advantages.

Maybe is it worthy to make a smooth change to this in the future? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-3#Comparison_of_SHA_functions