[Freedombox-discuss] Building a personal software stack
On 5 January 2013 14:22, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2013-01-05 02:43:28)
> > On 29 December 2012 18:30, Petar Petrovi? <[1]petar at petrovic.io> wrote:
> >> I think that we don't HAVE to integrate everything, at least not
> >> during the initial development. I think we should focus on building a
> >> software stack, and then at some point, we can decide if deep
> >> integration is worth the effort. Of course, I am always open for
> >> different opinions and ideas.
>
> Yes, let's build FreedomBox 1.0 before we build FreedomBox 2.0.
>
> In my mind, FreedomBox 1.0 is *boring* - it contains no new inventions,
> only oldfashioned Debian mechanisms served user-friendly boxed. That in
> itself is a *big* milestone for FreedomBox.
>
> FreedomBox 2.0 is *interesting* - it contains improved ways of doing
> stuff classic among geeks, and still does it user-friendly boxed.
>
> FreedomBox 3.0 is *exciting* - it contains new inventions that have
> happened in parallel to our "boring" work, inspired by similar events
> that triggered the FreedomBox project but without that tough contraint
> of being user-friendly. Of course when those inventions reach
> FreedomBox they _are_ provided user-friendly boxed - because that is a
> fundamental requirement of FreedomBox.
>
> We (as in the developers on FreedomBox) HAVE to integrate everything
> needed for serving privacy-aware functionality in a user-friendly way.
> If we don't, we don't have a FreedomBox, but some other Debian-related
> tool or toy.
>
>
> > Yes, I think this is a valid approach. The web was designed to tie
> > many systems together via the hyperlink.
>
> True that the web is about tying many systems together.
>
> FreedomBox, however, is about protecting privacy, and here it does
> matter crucially to have enough functionality locally so as to not leak
> privacy when doing said hyperlinking.
>
> FreedomBox is also about serving non-geeks, and here it is crucial that
> all interaction is user-friendly. *ALL* interaction! There is *no*
> admin, beyond the user herself/himself!
>
>
> > Of course it would be nice if the integrations could provide a
> > seamless user experience, but perhaps that can only happen over
> > time...
>
> If you mean postponing user-friendliness till later, then it sounds to
> me like you are talking about something (quite exciting and worthwhile
> to try reach but) different from Freedombox.
>
+1 to everything
Just saying the good user interfaces take time to build ...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> - Jonas
>
> --
> * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
> * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
> [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20130105/eac7febd/attachment.html>
Reply to: