bjorn.ottervik at gmail.com
Sun Nov 26 13:27:36 GMT 2006
A good compromise could be to have a GPL/LGPL-only Ubuntu installer, and for those that need f.ex non-free wifi- and
gfx driver, a second ISO contaning these, that can be inserted at some convenient point during the installation, and
the drivers to be loaded from it.
Those cards with sufficient FLOSS drivers would, of course, get their eye candy/networking even without this extra CD.
This would be easy to figure out even for non computer savvy users, and still keeping the main distribution free, in
all senses of the word. The extra ISO would make sure there is no need for an internet connection during installation.
Figuring out if you need it is also much less hazzle for a regular user, than what architecture your CPU is built upon.
I'd personaly favour this approach to any inclusion of non-free content in the main distro.
Kevin Perros wrote:
> I believe that the point is not to argue for or against insertion of
> non-libre software.
> I believe that a distribution committed to libre-software should
> maintain and *distribute as iso images*, a distribution containing only
> free software. This should the primary target distribution and the
> distribution containing the non-free stuff should be only a derivative
> of the later.
> Making a distibution that is articulated around non-free software will
> lead, on the long term, to so many dependancies on the non-free stuff
> that both versions of the distributions will vary enormously in
> Major distributors like Mandriva, which contains an iso disributed
> Mandriva-Free and a series of non-free are Free distributors because
> there is an easy way to use the distribution : burn the CDs and go on.
> Using a free Ubuntu is far more difficult : you must make a net install,
> setup the good repositories, things that are far from newbie-friendly.
More information about the ubuntu-devel