[Freedombox-discuss] is FreedomBox only FreedomBox if directly usable by people on the barricades?
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:29:12AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-06-22 at 06:02pm, J David Eisenberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> > > On 11-06-22 at 04:43pm, Neophyte Representative wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Jonas Smedegaard - dr at jones.dk
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > So due to violent regimes killing Karlas, you suggest we do not
> > >> > label a box helping Joannas making a silverlining of the cloud as
> > >> > "FreedomBox"?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Yes.
> > >>
> > >> I don't take The Ultimate Sacrifice lightly. ?I'd MUCH prefer we
> > >> have those folks alive to help make progress.
> > >
> > > How? ?By putting not yet stable stuff into early releases of
> > > FreedomBox?
> > >
> > If I read Neophyte's post correctly, he suggests that we help by not
> > giving Karla unreasonable expectations by using the name "FreedomBox"
> > for something that is designed to fit Joanna's needs and does not meet
> > the needs of a freedom fighter.
> >
> > I am at a total loss for a good name for the box that fits Joanna's
> > needs. "Personal Cloud in a Box" seems descriptive, but is too clumsy.
> > "Silverlining Box" is intriguing but not self-explanatory.
> >
> > If this question is even relevant: If Karla were to have the box that
> > fits Joanna's needs, would this be worse than having nothing at all or
> > better than having nothing at all?
>
> I do find it a quite relevant question. And I apologize for being so
> lousy at expressing my opinion, so thanks for the patience and your help
> clarifying it.
>
> I consider FreedomBox a tool for non-technical users to participate in
> the silverlining of the cloud.
>
> I do not consider FreedomBox exclusively targeted so-called "Freedom
> Fighters" - meaning people going on the barricades and risking their
> lives and physical freedom in their fights.
Ok, so I wanted to step back not to make too much noise, but I still kind
of disagree with this separation, and it seems my points weren't that
clear.
Mostly because I'm not sure that the -stealth option would be so harder to
begin to implement in regards of the -dating one. I mean, Tor is packaged
in Debian since long times, as gnupg, and a lot of -stealth
implementations might only be tricks like the one I described (i.e
facilitating the usage of different identities in a per activity basis).
On the opposite, a lot of modern -dating softwares aren't that stable yet.
Again -stealth and -dating options aren't only a package state issue, but
also related to a global design of the box.
With this vision (deferring the -stealth option and focusing on the
-dating one), I fear that the project might take some decisions at the
first place and have to re-implement a lot of things at the second stage
while considering the -stealth option.
And because I don't think we can't divide the world between the one who are
on barricades or the others. A lot of people like Carla do also have a
facebook account and a social life unrelated to their "freedom fight". And
at some point, Joanna might be involved in riots if the situation in her
country degenerates. But in this case, Joanna would be put in risk,
because she won't have the necessary tools nor habits not to leak online
her new activity.
And we might have hard times sometimes to attract people like Joanna, good
example is the gmail one : how many good FOSS alternative do you know,
able to defeat gmail's killer features?
But still, all of that is personal opinion ("I consider"), and what is
relevant to the freedombox is collective agreements. And I guess you
won't block if some people begin to work on the -stealth part and push
some bits in the 1.0 (cause yes, it's possible IMO).
bert.
Reply to: