[Freedombox-discuss] Intel Compute Stick

Jonas Smedegaard dr at jones.dk
Wed Jan 14 12:46:59 UTC 2015

Quoting Jens Thiele (2015-01-14 12:19:47)
> Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl> writes:
>> What is the take of the Freedom Box project on the boundary problem 
>> in open hardware? Especially the lower boundary? At what lower level 
>> would such a requirement stop being applied?
>> See for an explanation 
>> http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/69/131
> Interesting read, thanks for that one (hope I will have time to read 
> it completely).
> But for me it would be more a question of at least heading into the 
> right direction at the moment.

That was my point too in my proposing to raise the bar now: I no longer 
see the benefit of tracking boards that are less ideal when we have 
adequate options that are more ideal.

I am quite interested in Sunil elaborating, and others chiming in too, 
on reasons to keep tracking lesser ideal options.

One argument could be that SATA port is important, and raising the bar 
to "must be OSHW" leaves us with SATA-enabled boards from only a single 

Other arguments?

Opinions on priority of arguments?

NB! Please limit to arguments and priorities sensible to apply *now* 
with *existing* board options (reflections on theoretic principles 
disconnected from current FreedomBox and currently available boards in a 
separate thread, please).

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20150114/df0d3e83/attachment.sig>

More information about the Freedombox-discuss mailing list