[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Freedombox-discuss] 'No sysadmin' is the key to Freedom Box

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Matt Willsher <matt at monki.org.uk> wrote:

> On 4 March 2011 20:09, Tracy Reed <treed at ultraviolet.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 10:53:13AM -0800, Tony Godshall spake thusly:
>> > both the above have a remote sysadmin.
>> >
>> > named Apple and Google.
>> Only in the same sense that my Linux box has a remote sysadmin named
>> CentOS or
>> RedHat. Apple/Google never directly ssh into your phone. Although since
>> you are
>> running their code they can do whatever they want just like RedHat can
>> theoretically do whatever they want with my servers.
> RedHat has no remote kill switch for your apps. Apple does for iOS,  Google
> does for Android.

At least in the Android case, replacing the Google firmware with something
that lacks this backdoor is not terribly hard. Now, I'm not saying we should
advocate everyone reflash their phones - but the devices themselves are
quite capable and are being mass produced already. As such, they are a very
interesting development platform.

Cutting a deal with one of the manufacturers would be within the realm of
possibility for an organization like the FreedomBox foundation.

A better argument against using phones as a basis for FreedomBox development
is simply cost. Those big fancy touch screens are not cheap and for a server
device that is probably wasted money (unless it doubles as a clock or
picture frame or something). But prototyping on a phone and assuming that
when mass produced the screen and battery will be replaced with a wall
socket and charging circuit could be a completely sane strategy for this

I'm not saying it *should* be, but I really think you are being overly
negative here. And if we end up with something that *can* run on refurbished
mobiles (cracked screens are a common failure mode), taking advantage of
built-in bluetooth and 3G and wifi, then that's not a bad thing, now is it?

For most people it goes via a proxy and there is little that can be done
> about that until there is a wifi mesh and then you've going to want either
> mobile IPv6, VPNs or dynamic DNS so the clients can find the 'server'.

All of these problems apply to some degree to other in-the-home consumer
devices as well.

There are all sorts of ISPs out there and as I've argued on other threads,
assuming that the FreedomBox will be a router with a routeable, unfiltered
IP address will exclude a massive number of users (myself included). As the
IPv4 crunch gets worse it may even exclude most people on the planet - if it
doesn't already.

Bjarni R. Einarsson
The Beanstalks Project ehf.

Making personal web-pages fly: http://pagekite.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110304/12b83075/attachment.htm>

Reply to: