[Freedombox-discuss] off the shelf reference hardware software.

Erkki Lintunen ebirdie at iki.fi
Thu Sep 8 10:59:47 UTC 2011


I must give my full endorsement to Ted Smith's view and suggest that the
project could take following course in development, example:

* any hardware platform goes at this stage
* concentrate to the first subset of FBX features, say:
	- networking (mesh, DNS)
	- basic host security measures
	- trust
	- identity
	- basic web-service
	- a web-tool to see how FBX grid works
* any software qualifies what works with others
* recommendation/endorsement that a lot of attempts are done to crack
each FBX system (this builds trust and does real stress testing for
building trust among development community)
* stealing trust from a FBX dev system is the honeypot for cracking

After a period the subset of features works, or does not due to some
higher level design is needed, and no compromises are met, it will be
time to release first reference distribution.

I think there is enough work to sort out and get working in the subset,
while it makes the FBX reality and fun to tinker with.

Although I already said to fully endorse Ted's view, I make an
exception. I hope this doesn't need any authority to announce or direct,
but just people to start putting up things and seeking each other like
Nick Daly has already done - and doing. I expect myself catching up and
getting into line for a node to be part of a FBX development grid.

I think the proposal speaks to many, that we won't trust each other
until proven so and that's what needs to be tested continuously in
developing FBX along the presented FBX ideals. So I don't begin to
explain, how this affects the practice of setting up first FBX nodes for
dev grid.

I'm sorry if I have missed something and the above does not offer any
progress. I haven't followed the list as closely as I have wanted to.


PS. This is my first message to the list, but I'm hoping to give better
introduction via FBX dev grid, where trust mechanisms are at trial.

on 7.9.2011 17.41 Ted Smith wrote:
> There's a disturbing trend on most lists like this to focus on
> technological unicorns rather than technological llamas. Even though we
> really need to just integrate the things that do heavy lifting (hell, we
> even need to AGGREGATE those things), it's less fun than having
> arguments about whether unicorns authenticate over WebID or DNS+DANE or
> OpenPGP.
> What the Freedombox Foundation could do to address this is come up with:
>       * A list of programs that need to be packaged for debian
>       * A list of Debian packages that need to be configured for
>         non-enterprisey home server usage
> Any person with an internet connection and a computer can learn to
> package software for Debian, or learn configure software. These things
> don't need special hardware, but they do need an authoritative voice
> saying "these are the things we need worked on."
> If these things aren't just put down by mandate, there needs to be some
> other clearly defined procedure (like a voting website, or a voting
> system among people who have already contributed) to avoid endless
> debate. We need to avoid bikeshedding, and counteract the human tendency
> to avoid discussing important things for fear of status loss.
> This body part will be downloaded on demand.

More information about the Freedombox-discuss mailing list