On 09/22/2016 07:33 AM, Joseph Honold wrote: > On 09/21/2016 10:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >>> In a case where a housing is designed to be a router, if I plug my A20 cpu >>> card that ships with a desktop gui OS, it is in no way configured to be >>> usable as a router. >> >> that's absolutely fine and permitted: i would expect the user to plug >> in an OTG Cable, plug in an HDMI cable, boot from internal NAND or >> internal MicroSD and off they go. in effect they would merely be >> using the router for "power provision". if the desktop OS is kept >> properly patched and up-to-date, the device-tree binaries would >> already be on the CPU Card, so it would even recognise the USB devices >> and other hardware of the Housing. not that there might necessarily >> be any applications installed which could take advantage of the extra >> hardware, but that's the user's problem to deal with by installing the >> applications that they require. >> >> the key bit that's glossed over there is: the user should be keeping >> the OS (specifically the u-boot and linux kernel) up-to-date so that >> it is capable of recognising all Housings. for _that_ to work, all >> Housings implementers / designers *must* keep the device-tree >> fragments up-to-date. >> >> any end-user that doesn't keep their OS up-to-date (stops automatic >> updates from being installed, for example) is "on their own". >> >> the envisaged process isn't perfect, by any means: we do have to be >> realistic about that. >> >> >>> So, would you deny that the router housing EOMA compliance? >> >> of course not, because the question is a misunderstanding of the process. >> >> anyone who is plugging in (for example) an EOMA68-A20 into a (for >> example) router Housing is probably the kind of expert who knows what >> they're doing. if they're even *remotely* contemplating that kind of >> re-purposing / mixing-and-matching (and are the first or one of the >> first to consider doing it) i think it's safe to assume that they >> would be capable of customising (or entirely replacing) the OS with >> one that is more suited to the job of "being a router" as opposed to >> "being a desktop OS". > > If an average consumer buys a housing that claims it is a router and plugs in > their old A20 cpu card (that contains a pre-installed desktop style OS) the > hardware may be configured correctly per the dtb, but they surely won't be > happy when they find out they need to setup a firewall, dhcp server, etc, > etc, and much much more. The definition of "plug it in and it works" here is > sketchy at best. IMO, "works" means, works as a router like the housing > packaging said it would, and I expect most consumers would think the same. > Now, average consumer tosses cpu card and housing in the trash and never buys > EOMA again because it didn't *just work*. > > Consumers should expect some kind of setup for any new hardware, especially a > networking appliance, but asking them to install and properly configure a > router OS is preposterous. If you allow a provision for housings to boot, the > router housing manufacturer can provide a suitable OS (eg openwrt) and > average consumer can be happy. >
As a user, I would expect to be sold a router housing and a router EOMA68 computer card. I would expect the router housing to be able to host my desktop card as well. I would also expect the router card to work in my desktop housing. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk