[Freedombox-discuss] FBx Configuration Management

[Brian Drake]

My experience with the dreamplug/ et all devices and having multiple power
users is not great.  I really don't believe they are powerful enough to
hold multiple virtual hosts (would love to be proved wrong)

It was fine for lightweight use but as soon as any kind of heavy IO
activity kicked in there was none of the good shared resource capability of
a full powered desktop/server.  One person doing a lot of IO and the thing
would pretty much halt and wait for it be over before moving along.  One
person, when you are the one telling it to do X, will be patient with
the occasional slow down.  When you don't know that X is happening it gets
really frustrating, really quickly.

Brian Drake
Austin Texas
512.850-6326
http://www.linkedin.com/in/brndrakeecoit
Schedule a Meeting:  http://tungle.me/briandrake



On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:46 AM, <bnewbold at robocracy.org> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012, Michael Williams wrote:
>
>  To add to what you said, I think we should definitely have fine
>> grained access control to system-wide configuration. The idea of a
>> shared server resource between individuals has been dawning on me, so
>> I really want a way for people to share their FBx with other people,
>> and still let everyone configure their own services. This same concept
>> should expand to any type of server, not just plug servers.
>>
>
> Thanks for the reply!
>
> To me the most appealing way to have multiple hosted individuals on a
> single box would be to create lightweight virtual machine containers for
> them so that each user gets a proper login and can fully customize their
> environment. I don't know if this is feasible on the DreamPlug hardware, I
> ran in to trouble getting LXC up and running.
>
> I don't know anything about existing strong access control mechanisms for
> systems configuration (windows registry? d-bus? something gnome? android?),
> and it seems like too much to build in a day or two, so next week i'll
> probably just go ahead with a single user system.
>
>
>  About the current Plinth set-up, I'm interested in making a per-module
>> platform using zeromq (http://zguide.zeromq.org/**page:all<http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all>)
>> and zerorpc
>> (https://github.com/dotcloud/**zerorpc-python<https://github.com/dotcloud/zerorpc-python>)
>> instead of python
>> modules. I like the idea of allowing services to be written in any
>> language they want, as long as they abide by a common message-passing
>> protocol. I can imagine the topology being:
>>
>> client -> front-end -> per-user service -> per-user/per-module service
>>
>> OR
>>
>> client -> front-end -> system-wide/per-module service.
>>
>
> I don't understand the motivation. I guess I assumed Plinth modules would
> be very small user interface wrappers around existing services or tools
> which are already written in many languages.
>
> -bryan
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.**alioth.debian.org<Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.**org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**
> freedombox-discuss<http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20120703/c9032a1a/attachment.html>