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 email@example.com
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk