[Sunil Mohan Adapa]
> I see FreedomBox as not just one hardware platform that everyone must
> buy to get the benefits but also as a distribution (pure blend of
> Debian) that can make use of existing hardware. A lot of hardware
> that people have already bought or will buy for reasons other than
>
On Wednesday 14 January 2015 06:16 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[...]
> That was my point too in my proposing to raise the bar now: I no longer
> see the benefit of tracking boards that are less ideal when we have
> adequate options that are more ideal.
>
> I am quite interested in Sunil elaborat
Quoting Walter van Holst (2015-01-14 16:07:30)
> On 2015-01-14 15:36, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> What I propose *now* is to raise the bar at a _board_ being OSHW
>> compliant. That excludes both Raspberry Pi boards (even if future
>> boards from same vendor is likely to be OSHW compliant) and
> [...] The main thing that makes UEFI code problematic
> at the moment is the FAT driver, which is specifically BSD licenced
> but with an additional restriction that it can only be used for UEFI
> (in order to benefit from a FAT patent exemption). That bit isn't
> free, (because restriction by d
On 2015-01-14 15:36, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What I propose *now* is to raise the bar at a _board_ being OSHW
compliant. That excludes both Raspberry Pi boards (even if future
boards from same vendor is likely to be OSHW compliant) and also Banana
Pi - but includes other Allwinner-based boards
Quoting Walter van Holst (2015-01-14 14:07:56)
> On 2015-01-14 13:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>>> What is the take of the Freedom Box project on the boundary problem
>>> in open hardware? Especially the lower boundary? At what lower level
>>> would such a requirement stop being applied?
>>
>> I
On 2015-01-14 13:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What is the take of the Freedom Box project on the boundary problem in
open hardware? Especially the lower boundary? At what lower level
would such a requirement stop being applied?
Interesting question. Seems you are knowledgeable in that area (wh
Quoting Jens Thiele (2015-01-14 12:19:47)
> Walter van Holst writes:
>
>> What is the take of the Freedom Box project on the boundary problem
>> in open hardware? Especially the lower boundary? At what lower level
>> would such a requirement stop being applied?
>>
>> See for an explanation
>> h
Quoting Sunil Mohan Adapa (2015-01-14 06:25:17)
> On Wednesday 14 January 2015 03:42 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Sunil Mohan Adapa (2015-01-13 21:05:38)
>>> On Wednesday 14 January 2015 01:08 AM, Blibbet wrote:
To me it is unsuitable for a FreedomBox due to firmware, which is
Hi Walter,
Quoting Walter van Holst (2015-01-14 12:03:02)
> On 2015-01-14 10:36, Jens Thiele wrote:
>> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>>
>>> We could add a requirement that the board must be Open Hardware.
>>> That would leave us with 12 options from 3 vendors.
>>
>> +1 for this one
>
>
> What is the
Quoting Blibbet (2015-01-14 01:50:14)
> I forgot, there is also the Intel Galileo. Another Arduino-esque DIY
> hobbiest open hardware board, with the ability to update it's
> UEFI-based firmware, with an Intel toolkit.
When I looked in the past week, all available Edison and Galileo boards
lack
Walter van Holst writes:
> What is the take of the Freedom Box project on the boundary problem in
> open hardware? Especially the lower boundary? At what lower level
> would such a requirement stop being applied?
>
> See for an explanation
> http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/69/131
Int
On 2015-01-14 10:36, Jens Thiele wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
We could add a requirement that the board must be Open Hardware. That
would leave us with 12 options from 3 vendors.
+1 for this one
What is the take of the Freedom Box project on the boundary problem in
open hardware? Esp
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> We could add a requirement that the board must be Open Hardware. That
> would leave us with 12 options from 3 vendors.
+1 for this one
pgp8d9hrkucIr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
Freedo
On Wednesday 14 January 2015 03:42 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Sunil Mohan Adapa (2015-01-13 21:05:38)
>> On Wednesday 14 January 2015 01:08 AM, Blibbet wrote:
>>> To me it is unsuitable for a FreedomBox due to firmware, which is
>>> probably UEFI-based if hardware comes from Intel.
>>
>
+++ Blibbet [2015-01-13 19:20 -0800]:
> However, I'm concerned that while UEFI might be licensed in an
> OSI-compliant license, there are other restrictions from UEFI Forum
> members regarding using it. I don't have any info on this, except
> secondhand info who claim it would cost $$ to do nonstan
Thanks for clarification of UEFI use on ARM server. I was talking about
OSVs (MSFT, APPL) who are also OEMs (iPad, Surface Tablet, etc), using
UEFI on their hardware, to help keep their OS tied to their HW. ARM use
wasn't really for any technical need for booting on ARM. I have yet to
experience UE
+++ Blibbet [2015-01-13 14:34 -0800]:
>
> AFAICT, all Intel hardware needs either legacy PC BIOS or modern UEFI to
> run. ARM can work without UEFI, the only vendors that use UEFI with ARM
> are using it for HW/OS DRM mechanism.
No. Server-oriented hardware is using UEFI because it matches custom
I forgot, there is also the Intel Galileo. Another Arduino-esque DIY
hobbiest open hardware board, with the ability to update it's UEFI-based
firmware, with an Intel toolkit.
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/do-it-yourself/galileo-maker-quark-board.html
http://arduino.cc/en/ArduinoCertified/
> An Intel board was added recently (or maybe 3:
> Possibly Intel is involved also in the MinnowBoard).
Yes, Intel is involved with the MinnowBoard. (Already replaced by the
Minnow MAX.) The Minnow is Intel's Yocto hacker dev board, and it is the
low-end UEFI dev board. You can -- now, not initial
Quoting Blibbet (2015-01-13 23:34:42)
>
> On 01/13/2015 02:12 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Sunil Mohan Adapa (2015-01-13 21:05:38)
>>> On Wednesday 14 January 2015 01:08 AM, Blibbet wrote:
To me it is unsuitable for a FreedomBox due to firmware, which is
probably UEFI-based if
Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2015-01-13 22:38:47)
> On 13 January 2015 at 14:46, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2015-01-13 10:57:04)
>>> I was wondering if this could be a candidate for a freedom box
>>> device?
>>>
>>> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/compute-stick/intel-c
On 01/13/2015 02:12 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Sunil Mohan Adapa (2015-01-13 21:05:38)
>> On Wednesday 14 January 2015 01:08 AM, Blibbet wrote:
>>> To me it is unsuitable for a FreedomBox due to firmware, which is
>>> probably UEFI-based if hardware comes from Intel.
Note I said 'proba
Quoting Sunil Mohan Adapa (2015-01-13 21:05:38)
> On Wednesday 14 January 2015 01:08 AM, Blibbet wrote:
>> To me it is unsuitable for a FreedomBox due to firmware, which is
>> probably UEFI-based if hardware comes from Intel.
>
> Indeed, proprietary firmware is a deal breaker.
You mean UEFI speci
On 13 January 2015 at 14:46, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hi Melvin,
>
> Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2015-01-13 10:57:04)
> > I was wondering if this could be a candidate for a freedom box device?
> >
> >
> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/compute-stick/intel-compute-stick.html
> >
> > Rumoured t
On Wednesday 14 January 2015 01:08 AM, Blibbet wrote:
> To me it is unsuitable for a FreedomBox due to firmware, which is
> probably UEFI-based if hardware comes from Intel.
Indeed, proprietary firmware is a deal breaker.
We should consider promising FreedomBox users images and devices with
only
To me it is unsuitable for a FreedomBox due to firmware, which is
probably UEFI-based if hardware comes from Intel.
Even though UEFI has open sourced the bulk of their codebase, the core
drivers from Intel for their board init are still closed source drivers
(binary blobs).
Hardware controlled by
Hi Melvin,
Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2015-01-13 10:57:04)
> I was wondering if this could be a candidate for a freedom box device?
>
> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/compute-stick/intel-compute-stick.html
>
> Rumoured to be around $150
To me it is unsuitable for a FreedomBox: It lacks ethe
On Tuesday 13 January 2015 03:33 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> Even better: ‘The Ubuntu version of the Compute Stick will sell for $89.’
>
> Intel Compute Stick PC Specifications
> Quad-core Intel Atom Z3735F @ 1.33GHz (1.83GHz boost)
> 2GB RAM (Windows), 1GB RAM (Ubuntu)
> 32GB eMMC (Windows), 8GB
Even better: ‘The Ubuntu version of the Compute Stick will sell for $89.’
Intel Compute Stick PC Specifications
Quad-core Intel Atom Z3735F @ 1.33GHz (1.83GHz boost)
2GB RAM (Windows), 1GB RAM (Ubuntu)
32GB eMMC (Windows), 8GB eMMC (Ubuntu)
Full-sized HDMI Out
1x USB 2.0
1x MicroUSB
MicroSD Card S
I was wondering if this could be a candidate for a freedom box device?
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/compute-stick/intel-compute-stick.html
Rumoured to be around $150
"Pre-installed with Windows 8.1* or Linux*, get a complete experience on an
ultra-small, power-efficient device that is
31 matches
Mail list logo
