internet

>>Can`t connect to internet using dongle
>>which has been edited
What dongle ?
What means has been edited ?

@Chris:
lspci will do no good here if we talk about a WLAN USB stick.
Try lsusb instead.

If you can live with unfree firmware on your PC (which is of course outside
of Trisquel's focus and non-supported), then simply grab the firmware package
over at the debian site which suits your kernel. I needed to do so as well
with Aptosid since my 1GBit NIC on board is not supported without unfree
firmware.

Sorry for OT-posting ! Feel free to delete...

@Chris:
>This probably isn't the forum to go suggesting
>the installation of non-free firmware.
I only partially agree. The main problem with leaving out so called non-free
firmware is that
a) Joe Average can hardly understand why his device doesn't work
b) Joe Average will hardly understand the intended goal of distributions like
Trisquel.

I prefer the Debian way of omitting firmware in the first place but leaving
the user the option to load it.

@tash: Thanks for clarification ! This actually mean the firmware loader
inside the kernel is removed for the linux-libre kernel, right ?

I understand the idea behind removing any non-open parts inside Linux. The
main reason why I run Linux (in various forms) is simply the fact that I
dislike being patronized by M$ and all the alikes. Even when I run WinXP back
then I tried to use as much open-source software as possible.

Open-source will also drive my hardware selections in future. Example: If
NVidia cards with Noveau work best without firmware, I will choose an NVidia
card over lets say ATI/AMD.

One thing that bothers me about this "we are not gonna load this firmware
cause it's evil !"-stuff:
To my limited understanding such a firmware is dynamically loaded in order to
provide an interface to a hardware device (be it a scanner, NIC, GPU). OK, a
"non-free" firmware is not open sourced and somewhat bad because the hardware
vendors did not choose to make their hardware / interface specification open.
Granted...if specs where open someone could write an open-source driver BUT
if this firmware would not be loaded as blob inside the linuxkernel but
simply from a ROM inside the hardware...what would be then ?

The hardware device would thus not require any blob to be loaded inside Linux
but would it be more free than the device which requires loading a firmware
as small blob ?

I doubt though....

It's not all black and white. If you have issues about loading blobs inside
Linux, then you also should reject all hardware devices which have non-open
firmware on chip as well. Also lets not forget about the BIOS as Chris
mentioned.

My final conclusion on this topic:
Many, if not most, "free" hardware options essentially aren't free ! At least
not in terms of open hardware. We, as Linux user, often accept this mainly
because there are no other options beside designing your own hardware.
Limiting the user to access his hardware simply because the manufacturer
resells a standard design which requires loading a part of the code as
software for me makes no sense since we deal with closed source nearly
everywhere. Even CPUs have their own propritary microcode but we all use
them. Saying a device is more free than another simply because it runs
without loading firmware from the operating system but from a ROM inside the
device is close to self-deception.

Everyone who had to do with hardware design (e.g. VHDL) knows that separation
between hardware and software is not feasible today anymore. Pretty much
every device is a blackbox. The only difference is where you draw the border.

Just my two cents,
-D$

My mistake. Darksoul71 is correct. Use the lsusb command instead.
This probably isn't the forum to go suggesting the installation of non-free
firmware. While it probably technically works (at least right now) it defeats
the purpose of going with a free distribution like Trisquel. Now maybe it
isn't why he likes Trisquel... but... the main aim of Trisquel is freedom.
Chances are better than not this is why he is trying it out. GNU/Linux in
general free or non-free isn't about price. It is just generally available at
little to nothing. It is about freedom, features, and other things.

See the faqs:

http://trisquel.info/en/faq#n3180

As far as a network card goes there are USB network cards with free software
compatible chipsets. We sell two of them. If you really care about freedom
you might want to think about moving away from the non-free firmware. We all
use some non-free code (this includes your BIOS and various other pieces of
micro code) although not every one is allowing it to get in the way of
reducing that dependency to the extent it is currently possible.

My mistake. Darksoul71 is correct. Use the lsusb command instead.
This probably isn't the forum to go suggesting the installation of non-free
firmware. While it probably technically works (at least right now) it defeats
the purpose of going with a free distribution like Trisquel. Now maybe it
isn't why he likes Trisquel... but... the main aim of Trisquel is freedom.
Chances are better than not this is why he is trying it out. GNU/Linux in
general free or non-free isn't about price. It is just generally available at
little to nothing. It is about freedom, features, and other things.
See the faqs:
http://trisquel.info/en/faq#n3180
As far as a network card goes there are USB network cards with free software
compatible chipsets. We sell two of them. If you really care about freedom
you might want to think about moving away from the non-free firmware. We all
use some non-free code (this includes your BIOS and various other pieces of
micro code) although not every one is allowing it to get in the way of
reducing that dependency to the extent it is currently possible.

I have a very similar experience with Trisquel as I had with transitioning to
a vegan diet. Of course as beginner vegan I had plenty of leather stuff,
animal based soaps and cosmetics etc left over. The truth is that yes I could
have continued to wear my old pair of leatherjeans which I had paid 500
Euros. But eventually it felt odd. I became increasingly aware how a vegan
going clubbing in a 500 Euros pair of Leatherjeans is a walking
contradiction. Also increased awareness of the evil of leather gear just made
it feel uncomfortable.

I understand that trisquel is for people who - like I eventually chose to do
- would rather sell of their old pair of jeans and get a new one which is in
line with their values. Let's be honest: if Trisquel were to include any
unfree drivers a lot of us would just click ok to activate those without much
thinking about it.

My mistake. Darksoul71 is correct. Use the lsusb command instead.
This probably isn't the forum to go suggesting the installation of non-free firmware. While it probably technically works (at least right now) it defeats the purpose of going with a free distribution like Trisquel. Now maybe it isn't why he likes Trisquel... but... the main aim of Trisquel is freedom. Chances are better than not this is why he is trying it out. GNU/Linux in general free or non-free isn't about price. It is just generally available at little to nothing. It is about freedom, features, and other things.

See the faqs:

http://trisquel.info/en/faq#n3180

Actually Linux-libre won't run any driver that needs a blob to work.

Actually Linux-libre won't run any driver that needs a blob to work.

My mistake. Darksoul71 is correct. Use the lsusb command instead.

This probably isn't the forum to go suggesting the installation of non-free
firmware. While it probably technically works (at least right now) it defeats
the purpose of going with a free distribution like Trisquel. Now maybe it
isn't why he likes Trisquel... but... the main aim of Trisquel is freedom.
Chances are better than not this is why he is trying it out. GNU/Linux in
general free or non-free isn't about price. It is just generally available at
little to nothing. It is about freedom, features, and other things.

See the faqs:

http://trisquel.info/en/faq#n3180

As far as a network card goes there are USB network cards with free software
compatible chipsets. We sell two of them. If you really care about freedom
you might want to think about moving away from the non-free firmware. We all
use some non-free code (this includes your BIOS and various other pieces of
micro code) although not every one is allowing it to get in the way of
reducing that dependancy to the extent it is currently possible.

If you are a free software supporter I think it is more black and white than you realize at the moment. It sounds me like are just haven't transitioned to a completely free system yet. Nothing wrong with that. It takes time and money. You shouldn't accept new non-free software and you aren't. Just don't go making out like it is OK to use non-free firmware even if you are using it. It isn't OK and it seems like you generally accept that.

That said you really should discontinue use of the hardware/software in the meantime though until you can get something that is free software compatible. It is a lot harder than transitioning of course... but in an ideal world that is what you would do.

The boundary is where manufacturers / developers put in artificial restrictions in order to prevent you from taking full control over your hardware. Non-free firmware on a read-only chip can't be changed. There are no artificial restrictions here. A BIOS without source under a free license on a read-only chip would be OK. You can't make changes to these pieces. If you swap it out with a flashable chip then it needs to be under a free software license though.

Most devices and computers are not free software compatible. Most computers use a combination of free and non-free chipsets (ATI graphics would be non-free although the Realtek 10/100 nic is free). The freest you can currently get have a non-free BIOS.

Most USB wifi chipsets are not free software compatible so most USB wifi cards are not free in any way, shape, or form. There are Three USB wifi chipsets that are free software compatible so there are some USB wifi cards that are free software compatible. Maybe 40% of printers are free software compatible. Maybe 1/3 of all PCI wireless cards are free software compatible. All or just about all 10/100 nics on a PCI port or built-in are free software compatible. Some 10/100/1000 nics are non-free though.

While you can't separate hardware and software today you can make sure your chipsets/cards/computers that rely on loadable firmware which you have designed have that firmware released under a free software license.

If you are a free software supporter I think it is more black and white than
you realize at the moment. It sounds me like are just haven't transitioned to
a completely free system yet. Nothing wrong with that. It takes time and
money. You shouldn't accept new non-free software and you aren't. Just don't
go making out like it is OK to use non-free firmware even if you are using
it. It isn't OK and it seems like you generally accept that.

That said you really should discontinue use of the hardware/software in the
meantime though until you can get something that is free software compatible.
It is a lot harder than transitioning of course... but in an ideal world that
is what you would do.

The boundary is where manufacturers / developers put in artificial
restrictions in order to prevent you from taking full control over your
hardware. Non-free firmware on a read-only chip can't be changed. There are
no artificial restrictions here. A BIOS without source under a free license
on a read-only chip would be OK. You can't make changes to these pieces. If
you swap it out with a flashable chip then it needs to be under a free
software license though.

Most devices and computers are not free software compatible. Most computers
use a combination of free and non-free chipsets (ATI graphics would be
non-free although the Realtek 10/100 nic is free). The freest you can
currently get have a non-free BIOS.

Most USB wifi chipsets are not free software compatible so most USB wifi
cards are not free in any way, shape, or form. There are Three USB wifi
chipsets that are free software compatible so there are some USB wifi cards
that are free software compatible. Maybe 40% of printers are free software
compatible. Maybe 1/3 of all PCI wireless cards are free software compatible.
All or just about all 10/100 nics on a PCI port or built-in are free software
compatible. Some 10/100/1000 nics are non-free though.

While you can't separate hardware and software today you can make your
chipsets/cards/computer free software compatible.

Firstly, I have to apologize for having a bad English. I'm doing my best.

To Chris: indeed, this is no place for non-free software; how about a sort of "user agreement" of following FSF Guidelines in forums too?

To Darksoul71:

---

The main problem with leaving out so called non-free firmware is that: a) Joe Average can hardly understand why his device doesn't work; b) Joe Average will hardly understand the intended goal of distributions like Trisquel.

Well: a) "Your device doesn't work in Trisquel GNU/Linux because (I) Trisquel, being a Free GNU/Linux distribution, doesn't distribute non-free software and (II) there is only non-free software for your device" seems pretty easy to understand; and b) "a)(I)" addresses that if Joe Average is really interested in finding out more about that.

If he isn't, try to make him interested, teaching him what copyleft and the four freedoms mean, how they impact on his life and experience, and why he should get involved; if he is that sort of person who refuses to listen to other people and refuse to try to understand what's happening by viewing it, even if only for a moment, as others would view, give him some slaps and have fun.

---

One thing that bothers me about this "we are not gonna load this firmware cause it's evil !"-stuff: [...]

Stop referring to Free Software as you were admirably mature and Free Software was some sort of children's thing. You are despising an image in your mind and believing that image is the concrete thing with the same name (Free Software).

[...] To my limited understanding [at least, you recognize it] such a firmware is dynamically loaded in order to provide an interface to a hardware device (be it a scanner, NIC, GPU). [...]

It's insufficient to merely say it "provides an interface" for the device to other software (in which case it would be a driver and, if this driver and the other parts of system were Free as in Freedom, it would, at the end, give the control to the user); it indeed controls that device (in which case it's the binary which takes the control itself, doing whatever the developer wants to do and probably what the user wants, too).

[...] OK, a "non-free" firmware is not open sourced [...]

No. A "non-free" firmware is non-free software. See this.

[...] and somewhat bad because the hardware vendors did not choose to make their hardware / interface specification open. [...]

No. It's bad because they didn't choose to make it free.

[...] if specs where open someone could write an open-source driver [...]

You're probably right, though it would be better to write a Free Software driver. Could implementing an open specification be illegal? I don't know.

[...] BUT if this firmware would not be loaded as blob inside the linuxkernel but simply from a ROM inside the hardware...what would be then ? [...]

Again, non-free firmware. Some differences would be the storage device of the blob and the software containing it. You got it:

[...] The hardware device would thus not require any blob to be loaded inside Linux but would it be more free than the device which requires loading a firmware as small blob? I doubt so...

Indeed. The goal is a free system; Linux would be more free (good for us), but the system wouldn't (and would be worse for us: to write a software is somehow easier than manufacturing a piece of hardware).

---

It's not all black and white. [...]

It is black and white at the level of freedom: there is only freedom or jail. Then, we have to apply this to the circumstances: how much free is my system? Where is it free and where is it non-free? It's like Chris wrote: it is more black and white than you think. (Don't forget we often -- if not always -- say "free" meaning "100% free".)

[...] If you have issues about loading blobs inside Linux, then you also should reject all hardware devices which have non-open firmware on chip as well. [...]

Damn, you just said it's not all black and white! In the previous phrase!

[...] Also lets not forget about the BIOS as Chris mentioned.

So, since (I) it's black and white and (II) the white is impossible, are you suggesting we should give up and become "dark souls"...? (see how I did it? :])

---

My final [rhetorical] conclusion on this topic: Many, if not most, "free" hardware options essentially aren't free ! [Really?] [...] We, as Linux user, often accept this mainly because there are no other options beside designing your own hardware [...]

So, "we, as a Linux user, do it because you can't"... wait. There's something very wrong here. And at last there is the option of not using the hardware if possible. Besides, "we" are GNU/Linux users, unless you are meaning kernel use only.

[...] Limiting [who's limiting?] the user to access ["the user's access to"?] his hardware simply because the manufacturer resells a standard design [?] which requires [who requires? That standard design or the copyright/patent holder?] loading a part of the code as software [let's think: you meant Free Software is limiting up there...?] for me makes no sense [well, does something here makes sense?] since we deal with closed source nearly everywhere [I agree! It's better to play soccer in a field full of mines than in a field with some dog poop...]. Even CPUs have their own propritary microcode but we all use them. [Indeed! So, we can haz BOOM instead of poop!] Saying a device is more free than another simply because it runs without loading firmware from the operating system but from a ROM inside the device is close to self-deception.

Indeed, it's self-deception. But this is your self-deception: you made it up. What Chris said was that there would remain some non-free pieces of software in the system after the substitution of other non-free pieces of software by free ones -- surprisingly, when it's done, the amount of free software increases, and the amount of non-free software decreases. Or I was teached arithmetics wrong?

---

Everyone who had to do with hardware design (e.g. VHDL) knows that separation between hardware and software is not feasible today anymore. [Unfortunately, over time, God ended the game. It was so fun!] Pretty much every device is a blackbox. The only difference is where you draw the border. [Well, let's play with that, so! But I hope someday we'll have box of other colors too.]

---

Just my two cents,

Just my two hours,

-D$ [What? "Dark$oul"? May God help you...]

Sphynx

edit: accidentaly repeated my previous message. Sorry.

What does limit you more, an OS that excludes blobs, or a vendor who provides the blob? Surely the OS. But that's not the point in the whole freedom talk. The point is to make all software free. Not to allow the users to use as many devices as they want. In that respect, Windows is the freest OS available, all devices bar none run with it. Sometimes you have to install an older version, but Windows it still is.

Now if free software licensing (for "normal" programs and certain kinds of firmware) would be forced through laws, which one day it hopefully will be, then you would be able to run all devices with free software very soon.

The amount of the devices that run with a piece of software or an OS doesn't matter for the particular freedom we try to promote here. What you can do with the software makes it free or non-free.

And sure, we all have to limit ourselves to just a couple devices in some areas, just in order to be able to use free software exclusively. But that just shows that the "mission" to free all the code isn't done yet. Unethical and simply stupid licensing is still in the majority and thus it is hard to have a computer that allows you to run it fully in freedom. As Chris says, the freest you can get is having a non-free BIOS and nothing else non-free. Lemote Yeelongs don't have a non-free BIOS but they're not x86 and they don't have a free software friendly graphicscard (it needs a blob for full functionality) and they are very small. Not everyone's cup of tea, to say the least.

> With stuff like UEFI on the close horizon I think we (as Linux users) have
> worse problems than small blobs inside or outside any device, right ?

The existence of a diversity of problems doesn't exclude those that can
be considered less important than others. For example, that argument
implies that nobody would clean the streets if there are more important
things to invest money. Usually, that argument is used as a quick answer
when oneself want to be excused of its behavour, but not for
constructing anything real. It is like saying that everything is
relative... doesn't help anything, only call to the inactivity or thing
at things that you cannot achieve. Good things happen when there are
people working on all the sides, not just the more important ones. Every
little step forward is a wonderful step.