Jonas,<br><br> Pushed to Wiki. I would suggest however that Sphinx is a far superior documentation platform.<br><br><a href="http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/Proposals/AnonProposal">http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/Proposals/AnonProposal</a><br>
<br>I will deploy future components of the design proposal there as well.<br><br>Regards,<br> Matt<br><br><br>Phil,<br><br> Thanks for the response. Sorry if I come off as stand offish or a jerk. I've <br>noticed since I made the jump from east coast Brooklyn to the west coast that <br>
people don't always have the same approach to conversation. That's a failing of <br>mine I am working on. Feel free to call me out on it. It helps. <br><br> Getting down to brass tacks, I didn't wish to imply that I want to limit or prevent <br>
anyone from contributing in any way. The great thing about open source, is that <br>people can contribute as they see fit. That's a strength we should be truly <br>appreciative of. What the thrust of my effort is right now is to focus efforts on the <br>
basic components of this project. I am concerned that people are not putting a lot<br>of thought into what they are doing. Some of the recommendations I have read <br>on this list seem to suffer from tunnel vision. <br>
<br> For example, embedded device development for cheap systems is wholly different <br>from the development that many of those willing to help are familiar with. When <br>good folks suggest deploying python, perl, and php onto an embedded device, or <br>
supporting full debian compatibility, I wince. Most embedded units that are under <br>the 100 dollar barrier cannot currently support this. We would also sacrifice a great <br>deal of capability on those units that may be capable of supporting these resource<br>
intensive requirements.<br><br> The reason Moglen wanted to target cheap units like the sheeva, or wrt systems,<br>is that they are widely available, and an integral part of global society at this point. <br>Most countries can't stop someone from buying a wireless router. If we can give <br>
them software for that router that will provide them the opportunity to duck out of <br>the way of an oppressive regime we have done a good thing. If we can deploy a <br>protocol compatible software image to a cellular phone platform again we win. The<br>
goal is to ensure we have a basic framework that can be pushed into any networked<br>device and activate it as a means of communication.<br><br> So I am attempting to distil the essential components of this effort. What are our<br>
goals here? What is the minimum set of functionality we can deploy that will <br>achieve our goals? Then, how do we approach that? What target platforms will this <br>support? At that point we can get back to the actual meat and potatoes of this<br>
development effort.<br><br> I don't see this as being a "new project". More like the actual skeleton upon which<br>we can build the many various ideas I've seen voiced on this list and in Eben Moglen's<br>
talk at FOSDEM. And I think that may be where you and I are not connecting in terms<br>of what I am trying to communicate. Once an API exists that we all agree on we can<br>allow many different people to focus on the specific areas of the project that appeal to<br>
them. Including integrating the communication back channel and storage with things<br>such as facebook, VPS hosting, and whatever crazy thing you want. You can worry<br>about UI and interface. While another person can focus on plugging into software <br>
defined radio and setting up packet radio links. Maybe someone will focus on providing<br>a wide arrange of authentication modules.<br><br> The goal is to just ensure that the many development efforts that will exist in this <br>
space can coexist peacefully and work towards a common goal. <br><br> Looking for feedback like this. So thanks! <br><br> Regards,<br> Matt<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Philip Hands <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:phil@hands.com">phil@hands.com</a>></span> wrote:<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 Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:51:13 -0800, Matt Joyce <<a href="mailto:matt@nycresistor.com">matt@nycresistor.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Here's the first of many anonymous proposals. I am working on trying to<br>
> break down the freedom box project into sections we can chew on. Too many<br>
> people seem to be leading charges in random directions for lots of different<br>
> reasons. I think like many of us that we need to clearly define what we are<br>
> doing before we go about defining how we intend to do it.<br>
<br>
</div>Firstly, your comment about random directions seems to imply that you'd<br>
like to prevent some people from doing what they feel is most likely to<br>
produce their vision of what the Freedombox should be, because it<br>
doesn't fit in with your (or some future consensus) vision of what the<br>
Freedombox should be -- that's not really how things work around here.<br>
<br>
We're not exactly overwhelmed by people doing stuff, so I'd say anyone<br>
that actually feels like doing something should be applauded rather than<br>
discouraged -- who are we (the talkers) to decide what's useful for the<br>
doers to be working on?<br>
<br>
Secondly, you appear to be proposing a new project to provide one of the<br>
bits of the jigsaw for the Freedombox you envisage. That's great, and I<br>
wish you luck with the construction, but I tend to agree with Jonas that<br>
we should be sticking at what we're good at here, and just doing the<br>
integration of the pieces that already exist into a coherent whole.<br>
<br>
Feel free to recruit people to the cause of building your new anonymous<br>
whatnot from here or elsewhere, but please don't try to stop people<br>
working on whatever they think is the important bit -- Debian has always<br>
run in many directions at once -- that's how we get to try out most of<br>
the plausible solutions to a problem, and pick one or two of the better ones.<br>
<br>
If we end up with two or three distinct incarnations of the Freedombox,<br>
well it may be a bit of a branding disaster, but it'll provide solutions<br>
for more people in the long run, and anyway, one of them will probably<br>
emerge as the definitive Freedombox, and will probably have features and<br>
capabilities that none of us are currently imagining -- better that than<br>
killing people's enthusiasm by telling them where in the problem space<br>
they must work, and so getting nothing.<br>
<br>
Cheers, Phil.<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] <a href="http://www.hands.com/" target="_blank">http://www.hands.com/</a><br>
|-| <a href="http://HANDS.COM" target="_blank">HANDS.COM</a> Ltd. <a href="http://www.uk.debian.org/" target="_blank">http://www.uk.debian.org/</a><br>
|(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>