Oops, I sent the following reply to James personally, not the list. Resending!<br><br>James he followed up as well, I expect he'll resend to the list if he meant it to be public as well. :-)<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2011/2/17 Bjarni Rúnar Einarsson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bre@pagekite.net">bre@pagekite.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:29 PM, James Vasile <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:james@hackervisions.org" target="_blank">james@hackervisions.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
The bottom of the stack is routing. If the Plug is your router, it can<br>
do many things for you easily, even automatically. If it is not your<br>
router, it can't do anything without a lot of idiosyncratic setup.<br>
<br>
So if we are starting at the beginning, we need a device that can<br>
replace people's routers and then we can layer on the freedom bits.<br></blockquote></div><div><br>This is part of the requirements discussion. You are making a lot of assumptions, based on your particular vision for not only what a Freedombox is, but how your particular vision "should" be built.<br>
<br>I think it would be very unfortunate if we came up with some sort of "roadmap" which precludes people working in parallel on the application layer stuff, because they have to wait for some low level hardware and networking stuff to get done.<br>
<br>Incidentally, you are describing a device that I personally could not use, because my ISP provides me with a router and won't let me change or replace it. Unless of course you just mean a device which I configure as "default
gateway", which then passes traffic on to my *real* router... but even that should not be a strict requirement.<br><br>Assuming you can replace people's routers is wrong IMO. It implies a few things:<br><br> 1. Your ISP will let you (not always the case)<br>
2. Your primary Internet connection is some fixed line (not, say, a 3G dongle)<br> 3. Only one FreedomBox per household.<br><br>Of these, I think 3 is a real show-stopper.<br><br>This is of course just my opinion - my personal vision is a slightly more generically useful FreedomBox: a personal server which I plug it in wherever I am, give it *some* sort of Internet connection and it automagically figures out the rest. It takes care of my social networking, hosts my personal web-sites, stores my e-mail, coordinates p2p back-ups, runs my Seeks or YaCy node, ...<br>
<br>Obviously some features would only be available if I use it as a router, but looking at the list of goals at <a href="http://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/goals/" target="_blank">http://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/goals/</a> , most of them (not all, but most) could certainly be achieved with the FreedomBox serving a less central role in the local network topology. So making that a hard requirement would seem like a really bad move to me.<br>
<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>-- <br>Bjarni R. Einarsson<br>The Beanstalks Project ehf.<br><br>Making personal web-pages fly: <a href="http://pagekite.net/" target="_blank">http://pagekite.net/</a><br>