On 14-09-11 05:42, Uwe Dippel wrote:
Dear all, what an interesting discussion!!
Yes. However, it seems to become emotional. Please beware. :-)
Therefore, the
topic 'host' on USB is and remains a hot one. It actually is Number
One
for me not to use it much more frequently, and has been the Number
One
turn-away of everyone until now when it came to advertising it.
While I agree that USB host seems really cool, I think it is not as
cool as it seems. In fact the current Ben is not used optimally, and
doing so would bring more than USB host would bring, I think.
For optimal use, we need software which is really useful on the Ben.
Not mouse-oriented software which you can use because the pointer
can
be controlled with keys, but software that was designed to be used
with a keyboard. Not a huge GUI that has been stripped down to fit
on
the screen, but a GUI that was designed for this screen size. And so
on.
I think there are great possibilities for Ben, and it's really worth
trying to get there. I'll spend my time on what I think is the way
to
go: a new OS with software designed for this hardware. It's a lot of
work, because many things need to be redone (although many things
can
be reused as well, of course). But I think it's worth it. When we're
getting further on that front, adding USB host will really be great.
Now, adding it will turn the Ben into an alternative for other
gadgets. Which is pretty cool, too, but not as awesome as it can be.
Now back to the exact topic: No, I am not. Yes, I am for total
freedom
in software as far as possible.
Only in software?
So I appreciate the distinction into the
'really free' stuff, and the 'not-so-free' stuff, that I can still
add
on just to put food on the table. I'd love to have all free
software on
all of my machines, but then I'd have to harm the environment
because
I'd have to fly to Europe because I refuse to use Skype.
Apart from the fact that there actually are free alternatives for
Skype (other than flying to Europe), I think we all understand what
you mean, and I suppose most on this list agree partly. Here's what
I
think about it:
- If people feel they need non-free junk, that is in the first place
their problem. Don't make it impossible or hard for them. It's fine
to
tell them about the alternatives, of course.
- If I'm going to spend my energy (and money) on something, it
should
be something I want to happen. So I'm not improving non-free stuff,
and I'm not helping people to use it (although there are
exceptions).
I spend my resources on free stuff only.
If qi-hardware thinks the same way (not sure if they do, but I think
it at least comes close), they will allow you to use an SD card,
including a wifi SDIO card, with your Ben. But they will not spend
their resources on adding it to the device. They will not adjust
their
designs to make it fit in.
No, I don't need totally free hardware that I can plug into my
totally
free nanonote (is it??).
Of course you don't _need_ it. But it would be cool. :-)
And no, it isn't. In particular the SoC, which is most of what's
inside, is not free at all. Then again, it's not any less free than
alternatives at this point. Hopefully that will change soon.
I'd love to, but there is a clear distinction,
much easier in hardware than in software,
Is it? I think the definition "the preferred form of modification"
is
pretty clear. It fits hardware just as well as software.
when I connect a totally
non-free WiFi-dongle into my nanonote. I know what I am doing, and
I can
even put a sticker "Free", in green, on the nanonote, and "Not
Free" and
in red on the dongle. But I can use it usefully.
Yes, and nobody is stopping you. But that doesn't mean Wolfgang
should spend his money on adding a WiFI chip inside the NanoNote.
In short: don't overdo it, please. keep the target in mind, provide
a
totally free (is it??) core (nanonote, e.g.), and then bite the
bullet
(easy in this case) and allow the rest of the world to get their
jobs
done, even with a devilish dongle. USB is a reasonably open
standard, so
is micro-SD, so what is wrong of interfacing the devil through an
open
standard with open hardware?
Interfacing is fine. But I shall not spend my time on improving that
interface if I can instead spend it on making it obsolete.
But then again, if you feel the interface is really important, I'm
not stopping you to improve it. I'm not against a good interface. I
just don't want to spend my time on developing non-free stuff.
Or do you not connect the nanonote to the
Internet because Google doesn't use all free hardware and software?
Come
on, stay realistic. Don't compromise in what you do, I fully agree,
but
only in your court. Don't try to be an island.
I think we mostly agree. :-)
Thanks,
Bas
_______________________________________________
Qi Hardware Discussion List
Mail to list (members only): [email protected]
Subscribe or Unsubscribe:
http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion
