[Freedombox-discuss] hardware and software maybe separate?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 06:26:05PM +0100, e.waelde wrote:
>In my humble opinion the hardware and software things of the freedom 
>box project could be viewed much more as separate items.
>
>a. software
>
>A working FreedomBox need not neccessarily be a small device. Just any 
>box available is good enough to experiment with the software side of 
>things, like routing, dns, identification, distributed storage and what 
>not.
>
>I envision a set of Wiki pages with accurate instructions on how
>to configure these services to make them work.
>. want to try tor hidden services? This is how your box will be seen.
>. want to try p2p distributed dns?
>. want to create distributed storage ...
>...
>
>From this information missing configuration options in packaging will 
>emerge and fixing packages up will lead to installable package sets.

I agree that usability testing and fine-tuning configs for each 
functionality considered for FreedomBox can be more conveniently done on 
a more commonly accessible and powerful laptop or desktop computer.

Good point that such preparations can be made usable also on its own, 
not tied to the 'box.

I dislike calling such environment a "FreedomBox", however.  At most I 
would call it a Freedom system, as it isn't "box'ed".

Anyone able to and interested in installing a plain standard Debian 
system can start *now* with above, be noisy both here on the list with 
experiences, and summarize findings at the wiki pages.

Those more daring can try formalize the process a bit - either by making 
a snapshot with e.g. virtualbox, or (my recommended approach!) using 
live-build as discussed yesterday.


>b. hardware
>
>Packaging things up to run on single-board-computers (like alix), 
>routers, plug computers is an entirely different task. Using Debian 
>Pure Blends as a basis seems entirely appropriate.

I (obviously - that's been my preaching/whining for a while now) agree 
to use the Debian Pure Blends approach - meaning everything _is_ Debian, 
nothing is "added on top" or "tuned".  For the end result.

Anyone disagreeing with 

For mockups, drafts, development previews, or whatever you wanna call 
it, I see no need for "purity", however: Throw things together in an 
ugly dirty way at first if you prefer, just have in mind that the 
messier you do it the more likely you are the only one capable of 
tidying the mess, and that the aim is having everything - including 
configuration, eventual GUI and artwork - packaged as Debian packages 
and included officially in Debian.

I do recommend anyone disagreeing with the Debian Pure Blends approach 
to speak up about their preferred alternative.  Not necessarily to 
debate (quite possibly I won't "fight" over it but just continue work on 
my own if noone wanna do it "my way") but so that you attract followers 
in whatever approach you find more proper.


As pointed out by others too, I also see a third part:

c. design

I am not a designer, so won't elaborate further on this (but sure have 
opinions, so don't expect silence from me on this topic :-P ).



>The two tasks are not independant, but IHMO they are not strongly 
>coupled.

I assumed[1] it obvious that...

   FreedomBox = Free software + box + design.

Thanks for spelling it out! (and hope you don't mind my extending it :-)

  - Jonas


[1] In fact, what I assumed was obvious is that...

   FreedomBox = Debian + Plug hardware + design

...but clearly not all on this list share that.

-- 
  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110218/4f3ff518/attachment-0001.pgp>