[Freedombox-discuss] Which languages should software be developed in?
On 1 March 2011 12:16, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 11:49:38AM +0000, Matt Willsher wrote:
>> On 1 March 2011 08:05, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 07:19:55PM -0800, Matt Joyce wrote:
>> >> I disagree completely. ?Python's app stack is far too big and has
>> >> compilation problems on many toolchains. ?You would be increasing build
>> >> complexity and size. ?Which is a concern on multiple embedded targets.
>> > Speaking about embedded targets, what's the idea about Android
>> > smartphones? Dalvik, native applications, preferably? Some
>> > ssh and apt-get would be sure nice.
>> The target for the Freedom Box is a plug device. These have
>> 800Mhz/1.2Ghz ARM processors and 512MB of RAM and at least 512MB
> Yes, you're describing a low-end Android phone here.
My apologies, my reply wasn't explicitly directed at your about
Android, more about the targeting of 'embedded' devices in general.
The target platform is one of the few things that has been stated by
the foundation. While mobile devices have there place, there are other
project working on those use cases. I believe they they should all be
able to interact together but I do not so them as a target platform
for the Freedom Box.
>> storage. While I'm sure freedom could be achieved with an embedded
>> device and for some use cases would be a preferable platform that
>> isn't one the stated goals of this project.
> The only problem I see is Android specifics, which won't
> play nice with the Debian toolchain.
The requirements are different too - power is a major concern were are
with a plug it isn't. It still has to act as a phone and present the
GUI etc, which vie for resource that a plug device of similar specs
has all of. I think there is smart phones do play a big part in all
this but IMO the main focus for the FB as stated should be on the plug
concept and a baseline needs to be drawn to which we work against.