[Freedombox-discuss] FreedomBox - "Danube Edition"
From: Markus Sabadello <markus@projectdanube.org>
Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] FreedomBox - "Danube Edition"
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:49:15 +0200
> On 10/22/2014 12:32 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> Quoting Markus Sabadello (2014-10-22 02:31:15)
>>
>>
>
> >
>
> On 10/22/2014 02:06 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Quoting Markus Sabadello (2014-10-22 01:29:15)
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> So the message would basically be "you can get one, you can try to
> > use it and learn about it, but don't rely on it".
> > I noticed you just discussed how FreedomBox was not ready for the
> > next Debian stable, but I think some people who don't know the
> > command line would still want one.
> >
>
> You think some people who don't know the command line would want to
> buy hardware to learn about it but not rely on it?
>
> I think some people buy it but ignore the "but not rely on it" part -
> because after playing with it (i.e. clicked on the web interface -
> they don't know the command line) they conclude that if feels
> reliable enough despite the warnings.
>
> I think it is a bad idea to sell something that is not yet ready, to
> someone who don't understand what that means: We are all so very used
> to reading and ignoring disclaimers.
>
> Thanks Jonas, I had the same thoughts and am also worried about the same
> things.
>
> Following your argument, I believe people outside the command line /
> hacker / developer communities could never use any security or privacy
> related tools, because they will never be 100% ready.
>
> How do you measure "percentage of ready"?!?
>
> Debian "release when reasy" and have a track record of reaching that
> point multiple times. But perhaps your "Danube Edition" has different
> concept of "reeady" than Debian?
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't mean it that way, you are right of course, and probably I said it
> wrong.
> Of course it's not "ready" by Debian standards, and not "ready" for use by a general
> public.
>
> But considering that there have already been releases, and people have paid money for
> its development on Kickstarter, it is "ready" for trial use by an educated audience, no?
>
> This is all I meant,
> 1. just provide a simple service to send a few packaged boxes to an interested audience
> 2. try to add a few new functions to the project, such as Unhosted, LDP, ..
>
> Really such a bad idea..?
Sorry to chip in -- maybe you could call it a "developers'
edition" or "prototype" to distinguish it from proper products.
--
maxigas, kiberpunk
FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166
http://research.metatron.ai/
People the switches!
Reply to: