[Freedombox-discuss] Raining on the parade
jancsika at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 25 20:25:15 UTC 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: Matthias-Christian Ott <ott at mirix.org>
> To: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 3:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Raining on the parade
> On 2012-06-25 21:10, Markus Sabadello wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Michiel de Jong
> <michiel at unhosted.org>wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Stephen Michael Kellat
>>> <skellat at fastmail.net> wrote:
>>>> In a [hostile] regime, this is not a plug and pray platform
>>>> that requires no training.
>>> that's probably the appropriate conclusion. and i think we should
>>> underestimate the importance of freedombox in the US and also in
>>> Europe. This is something we need. On all levels, and for the general
>>> public. So i think it should be a tool aimed both at relatively-free
>>> and not-so-free countries, at the same time, keeping in mind the
>>> differences between the use cases, and providing documentation with it
>>> to educate users.
>> Yes definitely.. The FreedomBox was born out of Eben Moglen's vision to
>> us from the centralized Facebooks, Googles, etc. It is about having data
>> our control, and about decentralized communication. My understanding is
>> that the
>> use case of political activism is of course important, but just a subset of
>> FreedomBox idea.
> I think this pretty much sums up to views upon the project that have
> often been been brought up on this mailing list: There are some people
> who want it to be a free, censorship-resistant, distributed, meshed,
> secure etc. (insert your favourite property here) device, which is in
> itself a noble and ambitious idea but perhaps a bit to too difficult
> given the readily available technology in the near future, and others
> who simply want it a small server that provides an alternative/a
> substitute to the above mentioned types of services.
> There has been a lot of discussion, but little progress compared to the
> interest the project initially had and to some extent still has. Perhaps
> one should focus the efforts on features that can be delivered in a year
> or two and accept that these ambitious ideas are part of the next big
> step and that having working software is more important in the current
> situation. If that means that the FreedomBox is not the perfect computer
> for dissidents, we will have to accept this for now (remember that most
> people volunteer in their free time).
> Maybe applying a more structured software development process (e.g.
> assigning people to tasks and keeping track of their progress and
> maintaining a development plan/schedule) could help to make better
> progress, so that the FreedomBox becomes something tangible and usable
> instead of an idea, though it could be difficult without full-time
> developers (just a thought).
> I don't know if this has been said before on this mailing list as I have
> not always the time to pay close attention, but following the discussion
> of the last weeks I think this had to be said.
I have my own ideas about what it should do, but even ignoring that I can
say for now it just needs to a) boot up, b) run, and c) create _some_ type of
connection to another freedombox. "Hi Bob, looks like I'm connected."
It looks like the development is heading in this direction. When it
gets to the point where I can plug in a box and say, "Hi," I'll buy one, because
I'm sure things will progress quickly after that. Of course I want it to do more
but that in itself is enough for me to start having some fun with it. :)
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
More information about the Freedombox-discuss