[Freedombox-discuss] objectives

Charles N Wyble charles at knownelement.com
Sat Jun 11 01:51:05 UTC 2011

On 06/08/2011 05:04 PM, Anthony Papillion wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Bdale Garbee <bdale at gag.com> wrote:
> Yes, it does, and I don't understand why that is. When I originally
> joined this list, it was pretty well defined 'what' Freedombox would
> be: it would be a plug computer that included all of the tools needed
> to accomplish Ebens goals and whatever else the group considered
> important. 

Well it would be a software stack that would run on a plug computer or
any other reasonably specced system. :)
Essentially you are correct.

> Quickly though, that became a 'let's cover everything from
> mobile phones to systems on a chip' and I think that devolved the
> project to a state where new contributors will have absolutely no idea
> where to start because they will have no idea 'what' a FreedomBox
> actually is.


>>  We want to provide a way for people to share with others narrowly or
>>  broadly a set of thoughts and media objects hosted on infrastructure
>>  they own themselves and thus have ultimate control over, as an
>>  attractive alternative to such sharing via popular existing services
>>  that provide little control.
> Right. And, for that, the software stack is nearly completely
> available now. We can now replace cloud services like documents, file
> sharing, chat, email, twitter, Facebook (soon), and even provide an
> entire cloud OS if need be. Couple that with existing mesh networking
> (I know it's a dirty word) and throw in an encryption layer and you're
> almost where you need to be.   We're close, if not there, now. Put
> these components on a plug or whatever device is decided on, write a
> front end configuration tool that doesn't confuse a total newbie, and
> you're ready to deploy.

Mmhmm. This is what I've been working on for 18 months. Almost to a
point of release.

More information about the Freedombox-discuss mailing list