[Freedombox-discuss] Tahoe-LAFS is like a Bittorrent with which you can upload as well as download

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Thu Jun 7 16:30:08 UTC 2012

On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 06:19:06PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > By the time you ship the DreamPlug hardware will look ancient. There 
> > will be enough CPU, RAM and flash space for Tahoe LAFS.
> Apply that attitude to all components (assuming we agree that FreedomBox 
> should contain more parts than Tahoe-LAFS), and the question becomes 
> real again!

You're correct that embracing bloat right from the start is the wrong attitude to take.

The question is what functionality is really important, and how many resources
it would take today. At least one user runs Tahoe LAFS on a consumer NAS,
so that's an empirical data point is that the package is not a resource

I think we can expect 2-4 cores and 0.5-1 GByte RAM for state of the art when
FBX is ready for consuption (BTW, what's the ETA? 1 year, 2?), and quite a few 
GBytes of flash, plus ability to access external 2.5" USB (go up to 2 TBytes 
now) or eSATA.

More information about the Freedombox-discuss mailing list