Wireless not working
I am a member!
I have found that my wireless should work with free software and exactly Trisquel for that matter; on h-node [1]. However Trisquel (7) does not see it.
Do I have to configure the kernel module or do some manual settings for it to work ?
https://h-node.org/hostcontrollers/view/en/1545/Intel-Corporation-8-Series-HECI-0--rev-04-
If it worked for Trisquel 6, there's a good chance it will work on Trisquel 7 is that your question?
You can try, and if unsucessfull try with installing the latest kernel from
https://jxself.org/linux-libre/
There is also wifi dongles at Thinkpenguin
https://www.thinkpenguin.com/catalog/wireless-networking-gnulinux
What do you mean "does not see it"? Not detected at all? If it's detected, it should "be seen" but "device not ready (firmware missing)" error should appear.
What does 'lspci' say?
Is it on? Ie. not disabled in BIOS. "Disabled by hardware switch?"
What is your computer make and model?
This link you've provided is not for a WiFi card but an HECI controller (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_Embedded_Controller_Interface), which has nothing to do with your WiFi card.
So we need to ignore that particular h-node link, since that isn't a WiFi card, and start over from scratch by asking: What is the make and model of your WiFi card? The output of lscpci should say.
I am a member!
You are right. I rushed to jump to conclusion and I didn't pay proper attention to the outputs. The driver is "RTL8723BE PCIe Wireless Network Adapter" and I have no reason to believe it might work.
Sorry for any inconveniences to everyone.
I am a translator!
>I have no reason to believe it might work
You are right. Proprietary firmware is required for it to work.
I had talked about this problem in the forum more than once. But please permit me to repeat:
The wireless thing is big factor for people to go away from Trisquel.
We are told always the solution: buy in think penguim a wireless card, but if the prices are too high for our wallets, is there not any other solution? yes there are, liberate and condensate the knowledge on how to get around that big problem by other means:
1. A site or document with update wireless cards that do function on Trisquel;
2. that site or document could contain the brands of computers and laptops that function with no problem with Trisquel;
3.That site or document could contain also information on how to get around the wireless problem by other means (code, installing a specific program in order to avoid, get around or isolate that specific problem, or else).
If we continue to ignore this problem it is a big exit door for newbies and people who being in Trisquel want to switch to a more modern laptop.
have said that before on at least two ocasions.
I am now switching for Debian for that reason, but still using trisquel on the old computer.
- https://h-node.org/wifi/catalogue/ (but a same model can have different chipsets and there is no way to know without testing)
- https://h-node.org/notebooks/catalogue/ (same as above)
- Install the latest version of the Linux-libre kernel; if Wifi still does not work, acquire a Wifi adapter with a supported chipset.
As you can see, "we", as you write, do not ignore the problem. You, on the contrary, ignore the answer you have already been given: https://trisquel.info/forum/problem-external-wifi-adapter-d-link
Because of cognitive dissonance. You installed proprietary firmware (as admitted in the thread linked above, and here again: "I am now switching for Debian") and now want to be told that it is OK, that you are still control of your Wifi, that firmware is out of the scope of the free software movement. It is not.
Do not get me wrong: you do whatever you want with your system. Including installing proprietary software/firmware. But, please, do not then try to use the free software movement to justify it: installing proprietary software obviously goes against the free software principles.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise explains it well:
So we must also avoid compromises that involve doing or legitimizing the things we aim to stamp out. For instance, experience shows that you can attract some users to GNU/Linux if you include some nonfree programs. (...) These compromises are tempting, but they undermine the goal. If you distribute nonfree software, or steer people towards it, you will find it hard to say, “Nonfree software is an injustice, a social problem, and we must put an end to it.” And even if you do continue to say those words, your actions will undermine them.
The issue here is not whether people should be able or allowed to install nonfree software; a general-purpose system enables and allows users to do whatever they wish. The issue is whether we guide users towards nonfree software. What they do on their own is their responsibility; what we do for them, and what we direct them towards, is ours. We must not direct the users towards proprietary software as if it were a solution, because proprietary software is the problem.
A ruinous compromise is not just a bad influence on others. It can distort your own values, too, through cognitive dissonance. If you have certain values, but your actions imply other, conflicting values, you are likely to change your values or your actions so as to resolve the contradiction. Thus, projects that argue only from practical advantages, or direct people toward some nonfree software, nearly always shy away from even suggesting that nonfree software is unethical. For their participants, as well as for the public, they reinforce consumer values. We must reject these compromises if we wish to keep our values straight.
It was in fact cognitive dissonance of mine. Sorry I was wrong, you are right. Sorry, I got it know! Almost... I don't still see why using non-free software is a social problem. Could you, if you have the time explain me why, please?
Honestly, I still think you have a point. Myself, I invite people to Trisquel and have several Atheros cards that I bought for cheap so I just offer those to my friends if they want to switch to using free software. But if you're new to this stuff and decide to go full libre right away you might be really discouraged if people make you open up your computer and then switch a wifi card, especially if you don't even know if it'll work for a given laptop etc.
Honestly, honestly I was being cynical with him. And because he is a smart guy he doesn't answer, so I had assumed that he perceived my cynicism.
But I have a point, of course, I am here in Trisquel for about 1 year, and some things started to smell too funny for me.
Of course somebody is maybe (always "maybe"!) protecting the "business" of think penguin and technoethical, maybe they have a part on it, maybe... But one things are for sure:
1. The prices of them are just pornographic!
2. If there are real and concise knowledge on how to liberate the wi fi cards, we wouldn't need to buy them.
3. Of course h-node is not the perfect solution. One simple question why we have to register to access the "knowledge"? And overall is very cryptic.
The free-software thing, that so many like to divinize in this forum, is just a concept! Nothing more! As we see with youtube-dl that supposed to be a free-software, it runs apparently non free JavaScript! And that is just one program, there are millions! Who's gonna check if the software is really free or not, when there is no time nor means to do it? So is resoundingly only one concept and nothing more than that. They claim so purely: this is free-software operating system! But when comes the time to prove it, they can't!
>Of course somebody is maybe (always "maybe"!) protecting >the "business" of think penguin and technoethical, maybe >they have a part on it, maybe...
The absence of proprietary firmware in Trisquel is to ensure users can avoid executing it without their knowledge- that's all. ThinkPenguin and Technoethical obviously have an interest in it being this way, but to assume this project is intended to protect their market position would be ridiculous- how many people actually use Trisquel? It's simply not enough to make it worth the development effort if the sole purpose were protecting two (relatively small) businesses.
>But one things are for sure:
>1. The prices of them are just pornographic!
These are small businesses in niche markets... expecting them to compete on price with mass-produced mainstream goods is not realistic. Perhaps more transparency as to were costs come from would be good, but it's clear already that they will be more expensive than standard store-bought ones. That's the price of fighting for freedom in a society were it's not an expectation, unfortunately.
>2. If there are real and concise knowledge on how to >liberate the wi fi cards, we wouldn't need to buy them.
What do you mean? In terms of finding freedom-compatible wi-fi cards, h-node is the best we can do with limited resources. The problem is that manufacturers will often alter the chipsets in a series, without changing anything about the packaging- which can render a once satisfactory card useless. You can't tell, so the only thing you can do is hope for the best (unless you buy it with an explicit guarantee of free-software compatibility). In terms of actually convincing manufacturers to loosen their grip on code, that's hard work. I know ThinkPenguin is involved in that- and it wouldn't be a surprise if Technoethical were too.
>3. Of course h-node is not the perfect solution. One >simple question why we have to register to access the >"knowledge"? And overall is very cryptic.
You could read h-node without registering last time I checked.
>The free-software thing, that so many like to divinize in >this forum, is just a concept! Nothing more!
I'm presuming you mean it's a pipe dream. In terms of winning over the world, it probably is- neither feminism nor anti-racism won over the whole world. But would it be worth declaring these movements a failure? Of course not! Just like these movements, the free software movement is not fighting with the expectation of winning over every living human being. Rather, it's about ensuring that nobody will be forced to accept proprietary software and/or the privacy, security, and other ethical issues accompanying it. In that sense, far from losing, great leaps have already been made- we still have a long way to go, but the present situation is far better than the one at the turn of this millenium.
>As we see with youtube-dl that supposed to be a
>free-software, it runs apparently non free JavaScript! And >that is just one program, there are millions! Who's gonna >check if the software is really free or not, when there is >no time nor means to do it?
According to the philosophy underlying modern Western legal systems, the burden of proof is on the one who brings accusations. Hence, although YouTube-DL did indeed execute a (small, provably sandboxed) JavaScript program, other components of the system are not under suspicion until evidence is brought against them.
Excellent reply. I just would like to add that youtube-dl is free software. Like Firefox is free software even if it does not block proprietary JavaScript, GNU/Linux is free software even if it can run proprietary binaries, etc. That said, youtube-dl interpreting proprietary JavaScript makes it lose all its appeal for users who want to control their computing. Anyway, youtube-dl is free software. In fact, we know it interprets JavaScript thanks to freedom 1 that lets anyone (the whole community can collaborate) study the source code.
Thank you! A good point also about YouTube-DL still being free software- I am completely missed that.
Excellent reply, but it did not convinced me.
→"According to the philosophy underlying modern Western legal systems, the burden of proof is on the one who brings accusations."
+
→ "I just would like to add that youtube-dl is free software. Like Firefox is free software even if it does not block proprietary JavaScript, GNU/Linux is free software even if it can run proprietary binaries, etc."
||
Let's simplify it, let's call everything in the repos of Trisquel free-software and the job is done, simply as that!
That one of the proof is very funny. Your god RMS is all the time saying that others OS's are dangerous because they run malicious software, where is the prove in one specific case? Or he says it just because he wants to!
And that naive idea that free-software is free just because the community have the freedom to investigate the code, doesn't stick any more. Where are the programmers to do it if they are so scarce and probably using their time to other things more profitable? Tell that to another...
In Math if you want to prove that a theorem is wrong, you just have to find one proposition that negates it! Them that theorem becomes an Inconsistency, that what is the idea of free-software.
But I believe in the future more inconsistency’s will arise against this purism of free-software, this manichaeist idea of "we are right the others are wrong", this so, but so much overrated concept...
In the meanwhile you can protect and console each other.
“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
>Let's simplify it, let's call everything in the repos of >Trisquel free-software and the job is done, simply as that!
One could do that, but it's in no way necessary- I haven't seen it done thus far.
>Your god RMS
I don't believe anyone would consider RMS particularly worthy of deification. Differences of opinion aside, the very characteristics which made him so well poised to initiate the free software movement can also make him less than sociable.
>... is all the time saying that others OS's are dangerous >because they run malicious software, where is the prove in >one specific case?
I can't speak on RMS's behalf, but to suggest that the possibility of imperfection means we should accept far worse flaws is tantamount to arguing that, since any electrical circuit is a fire hazard, we should ban electricity. We can't confirm Trisquel is 100% free, as you point out- but Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X definitely aren't.
>And that naive idea that free-software is free just >because the community have the freedom to investigate the >code, doesn't stick any more. Where are the programmers to >do it if they are so scarce and probably using their time >to other things more profitable?
Free software isn't free just because the community can read the code- they also have to have the right to modify it. Whilst this may not actually be used- programmers may indeed be scarce for some projects- the existence of that freedom is still all that is required. As with free speech, most people will never use that freedom, due to obstacles such as programmer scarcity or not wanting to be ostracized from the group, but, if one were to remove that freedom, there would still be significant damages caused to those who *would* have used it.
In any case, programmer scarcity is hardly endemic. Looking purely at the free software community might make it appear that way, but excluding open source advocates is inaccurate. The disagreement is almost entirely ideological, and works can usually be shared between the two communities.
>In Math if you want to prove that a theorem is wrong, you >just have to find one proposition that negates it! Them >that theorem becomes an Inconsistency
This is almost entirely true, but applying mathematical ideas to ideology is not tenable. Indeed, what you call an inconsistency above would be, in mathematics, a contradiction. The mathematical term captures the notion of an absolute, irreconcilable violation of the fundamental "law of the excluded middle". One proposition contradicting a statement instantly forces it to consign itself to falsity, with no way to ever revive it (short of proving the counterexample wrong). By contrast, in ideological or political considerations, the notion of "inconsistency" highlights how the counterexample can (although uncomfortably) co-exist with the statement. This is not automatic- some mechanism is needed to address the apparent contradiction- but, even while the counterexample holds, the statement it is intended to disprove can remain. Hence the use of the legal principle: until evidence overrides the assumption of innocence, innocence holds.
Takumi13
I disaprove the way you suddenly backlash at us just because your wifi is not working correctly
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/problem-external-wifi-adapter-d-link
Don't let your anger turn into bitterness and stop making absurd conclusions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware
Spyware or other malware is sometimes found embedded in programs supplied officially by companies, e.g., downloadable from websites, that appear useful or attractive, but may have, for example, additional hidden tracking functionality that gathers marketing statistics. An example of such software, which was described as illegitimate, is the Sony rootkit, a Trojan embedded into CDs sold by Sony, which silently installed and concealed itself on purchasers' computers with the intention of preventing illicit copying; it also reported on users' listening habits, and unintentionally created vulnerabilities that were exploited by unrelated malware
Your god RMS is all the time saying that others OS's are dangerous because they run malicious software, where is the prove in one specific case?
Running malicious software is dangerous. But the dichotomy free/proprietary has nothing to do with that.
And that naive idea that free-software is free just because the community have the freedom to investigate the code, doesn't stick any more.
Freedom 1 is *one* of the four freedoms defining free software.
In Math if you want to prove that a theorem is wrong, you just have to find one proposition that negates it!
In Math, if you want to prove a theorem, you first need to know the definition it relies on: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
With that definition (that has nothing to do with the features the program has), please prove that youtube-dl is not free software.