Re: [Arm-netbook] EOMA68 cards @ 92.4%

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 07/31/2016 05:56 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Wolfgang Romey  wrote:
>> Am Sonntag, 31. Juli 2016, 16:39:57 schrieb Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
>>> oops 404 not found, odd
>>
>> Maybe you have not used the complete link which ends with  ...devices/
> 
>  
> https://blog.crowdsupply.com/2016/07/18/campaign-focus-eoma68-environmentally-responsible-computing-devices/
> 
>  bizarre... looks exactly the same!  wonder what happened...
> 

David’s link contains a line break which breaks the link.


___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] 248 cards

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 08/04/2016 06:05 PM, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
> Then there's the crowdfunding goal, which is further ahead, but the
> cards' MOQ is already something.  I guess there are MOQs for the other
> rewards too ?
> 

What about the completely assembled laptops? The campaign seems to be
past 250. I think there still is a need more orders of laptop parts.
There was talk about >140 being desired.

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Logging and journaling

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 02/10/2017 10:37 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote:
> Running GNOME without systemd is a different beast: I don't know if it
> has happened already, but sooner or later systemd will be required
> because of an *upstream* decision.
> Debian fully supports a number of other Desktop Environment and window
> managers, some of which (e.g. KDE/Plasma) have a committed to being
> multi-platform and thus will not for the foreseeable future force the
> use of systemd.
> 

Current GNOME needs systemd interfaces which is why the not yet stable
GNU distribution GuixSD uses extracted parts of systemd like elogind to
provide them so it can run GNOME without running the systemd init system
(which it cannot do on GNU Hurd). So GNOME only needs parts of systemd. See:

https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/news/gnome-in-guixsd.html

I don’t know what Debian GNU/Hurd does. Either way, it’s the
distributions’ problem.

Regards,
Florian

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Verifying firmware

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 08/24/2016 11:31 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Bonjour,
> 
> Le Tue, 23 Aug 2016 19:50:30 +0200
> Henrik Nordström  a écrit:
> 
>> sön 2016-08-21 klockan 21:55 +0100 skrev Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
>>

 From a security point of view, open source code
> 
> I am feeling that there was some early cut here wrt the point discussed:
> what Raphaël was say is "From a security point of view, open source
> code is the best option since it allows to check if the code being run
> isn't malware".
> 
> With that in mind:
> 
>>>
>>>  no it isn't... *libre* source code is...  
>>
>> I would love to hear your elaboration on how libre source code is more
>> secure than open source. I don't see how libre have any relevance
>> there.
>>
>> Having access to the complete readable sourcecode and being developed
>> in a trustworthy environment is very relevant. But that is by no means
>> unique to libre or even proven to be an natural effect of libre. Those
>> aspects come from other properties of the software projects than what
>> makes the distinction between open/libre.
> 
> There is a slight difference though, at least if our understanding of
> "libre vs open" is similar enough, and bearing in mind Raphaël's
> statement above.
> 
> FTR, a TL;DR description of my own viewpoint would be "libre source is
> open source plus the ability, both legally and physically, to replace
> binaries built from said source with one's own possibly modified
> version" -- IOW, a 'thing' for which I can have source code but cannot
> rebuild and replace all of the binary code is not libre even though it
> may be said 'open source' without causing me to die gasping.
> 
> With this definition in mind, I see a difference between open and
> libre, in that with both, I can analyze the code, possibly discover
> risks, and potentially modify the source code so as to remove the risk,
> but only with libre can I actually eliminate the risk where it might
> arise.
> 
> This is where, considering Raphaël's statement, libre beats open: true,
> open source may allow checking whether some binary is a tampered build,
> but it does not necessarily allows fixing that; libre does.
> 
> (again, that's assuming the distinction above between open and libre.)
> 

While free software advocates emphasize the user’s rights and
independence – and unlike open source advocates, it matters to them that
the rights are granted in practice and granted fully, including for
commercial use –, open source proponents *do* care about (and may care
more about) advantages like more trustworthy code (more „eyes“). Of
course, a libre culture may make it easier to actually fix
vulnerabilities in practice when found.

Regards,
Florian Pelz

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Why Free hardware fails

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 08/24/2016 09:51 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>  well... we have 1571 backers so far (and climbing) so i think we'll do okay.
> 

You mean 1571 pledges? (Well, 1791 by now.) The number of backers is
probably less because probably most people have pledged for at least two
items.

By the way, have you considered watching out for government procurements
once more cards are produced? Your EOMA68 cards probably are better and
cheaper thin clients for VNC than what my university currently uses
(which are too slow to handle VNC and only do plain X11).

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] brief update

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/19/2016 12:38 PM, mike.v...@gmail.com wrote:
> Still on low speed machines try to avoid swap to any medium. All will get
> very slow; I/O contention. Memory usually has it's separate/private
> bus/tracs/connection. The rest, Network, Sata, USB, GPIO, SPI etc. shares a
> common bus.
> 

Swap should be avoided as Lkcl said, but a crash may be worse than
waiting for swap. Web, LaTeX, GNOME Builder usage can be expensive.
Well, I’ll see.

> So keep away from high profile desktops/compositors like Gnome and KDE on
> low memory systems.
> 

GNOME isn’t that bad. Of course LXDE uses less memory, but not by much.
The choice of Web browser seems much more important.


___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/20/2016 11:58 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:30 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>>>> For example, Wikipedia
>>>> has a hierarchy. It may not be perfect, but I doubt it would work
>>>> without one. Anarchies don’t have a single person or only few people at
>>>> the top, but they do, in my terminology, have hierarchies as well.
>>>
>>>  if there is *anybody* over the top of *anybody* within a group, then
>>> by *definition* it has an "over-arching decision-maker", and thus is
>>> *by definition* no longer an an-archy.
>>>
>>
>> With this strict definition of anarchy instead of self-governance,
>> voluntary institutions etc., yes.
> 
>  i would agree with you that there are different contexts.
> 
> for example: a parent with a 2-year-old child, living within an
> an-archic society, *clearly* would not place their 18-month-old
> child's decision-making capacity at the same priority / level as that
> of themselves!  funnily enough this has actually been partially taken
> into account, already, within the "bill of ethics", as covered by the
> section on "awareness of self-awareness".
> 
>  to cater for this, we define "groups".  the above example would be a
> family "group" where they have their own entirely self-determined way
> of dealing with and interacting with each other.  the members of that
> "group" would make the decision to interact with other "groups" (of
> one or more people) in their organised an-archic pre-agreed fashion.
> 
>  now, to expand the example even further, it may be the case that
> these "groups" operate within the laws of a particular country, where
> the "Hierarchical Ruler" of that country expects their laws to be
> obeyed as a priority over-and-above that of any "group decisions".
> thus we can see, a "group" has to set a specific focus of their
> activities which do *not* encompass *all* aspects of their lives.
> 
>  thus, my point is: we may set an "an-archic" decision-making process
> to cover very very specific goals (such as Visa's early example
> showed) - Visa's example certainly did not specifiy that the employees
> had to blatantly disobey traffic laws, tax laws, or other
> "Hierarchical-based" power structures that have nothing to do with the
> day-to-day running of the Visa corporation as an Organised Anarchy!
> 

I agree. Your strict, more literal definition of anarchy can exist
within limits. Some might call a more complete (political) system with
“voluntary” hierarchies an anarchy too even though it is not truly
without leaders, but that sense is not literal.

>>>> More
>>>> relevant here is that an anti-harassment policy / code of conduct is so
>>>> uncontroversial that having one helps and does not hurt for organizations.
>>>
>>>  it's a slippery slope, and it's not going to happen - that's the end of it.
>>>
>>
>> I mostly wanted to have this discussion for convincing you that a code
>> of conduct is a good idea for a larger organization.
> 
>  ... and i don't believe that it's a good idea (at all) to even *have*
> a code of conduct for a larger organisation, other than to make it
> absolutely clear that there is a goal, that the goal SHALL be reached
> ethically and by unanimous decision-making, and that anyone who gets
> in the way of achieving that goal SHALL be removed from the team.
> 
>  my belief is that the "bill of ethics" is sufficient to be *the*
> top-level document, and my analysis leads me to believe that it is
> sufficiently strong and sufficiently clear that even *attempting* to
> add a "code of conduct" is not only superfluous but would also destroy
> the document's integrity.
> 
>  in true respect *of* the "bill of ethics" however, there is no
> certainty in that statement: there is only "very high confidence
> statistical probability as empirically shown so far" :)
> 
> 

OK, I hope there will never be disputes about whether a …ist joke really
was so unethical.

>> Interesting. I’m not sure if the problem of mobility really can be
>> “solved”, but trying to improve what we have seems good.
> 
>  learning the lesson from EOMA68, if you appeal to people's wallets,
> they'll go for it.  the fact that it's eco-conscious is just "icing on
> the cake".  divergentmicrofactories.com has the story about how 80% of
> the environmental damage is done even before the vehicle rolls off the
> sales

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/20/2016 09:36 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>> I’m not talking about precise, high-level duties / implementation
>> details but more generally about the complement to rights in the
>> European sense. What you say about the Indian/Vedic context seems like
>> one low-level, more vague way to frame a duty, I am not familiar at all
>> with Vedic ethics and Hinduism though.
> 
>  don't catch anyone hearing you say that india is a purely hindu country!!
> 

India certainly has many religions. You said “indian/ayurvedic”, which
is why I said so. It was not the best wording.

>> What I mean is that a rights-based ethic
> 
>  stop right there: there is no such thing as a rights-based ethic.
> or, more specifically: there is absolutely no compatibility between
> "rights-based" decision-making and the definition of an "ethical act".
> 
> 
>> An ethic not based on rights can work equally well, probably with
>> similar consequences.
> 
>  i think i understand the mistake you're making (based on english
> language).  you may be confusing the general-purpose watered-down
> usage of the word "ethic" with the definition "an ethical act".
> 
>  the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" appears to
> be some sort of nebulous random, arbitrary and ultimately completely
> discardable self-designated "standard" by which people arbitrarily
> decide "oh yeah... i have an ethic.   yeah.  my ethic is, i can kill
> anybody i like that gets in my way".
> 

Kind of, yes. Like a system of logic.

>  the definition of an "ethical act" is the one that bob defines, and
> it is *not internally negotiable*.  as in, it is an *objective*
> measure by which "an act" may be assessed as being "ethical" or
> not ethical... in terms that are black and white.
> 
>  that definition is in NO WAY compatible with "rights".
> 
> 
>> I consider a flat hierarchy to be a hierarchy as well.
> 
>  ?  if there is nobody "over" you, it is literally - by definition -
> impossible to have a hierarchy.  if you are solely and exclusively
> responsible for yourself and for yourself alone, and have delcared
> that no man is EVER permitted to be "over and above" you, and there
> exists a group of such people, it is *literally* impossible - by
> definition - for them to be part of ANY hierarchy.
> 
>  *by definition*.
> 

You administer this mailing list, not me. In this context, you are above
me in the hierarchy / organization, even if it is very flat. If there
were many of you, you should have a Code of Conduct.

> 
> 
>> Some people
>> apparently don’t, so sorry if that was not clear.
> 
>  it's by definition.  an-archy *means* - by definition "without having
> any arch".
> 
>> For example, Wikipedia
>> has a hierarchy. It may not be perfect, but I doubt it would work
>> without one. Anarchies don’t have a single person or only few people at
>> the top, but they do, in my terminology, have hierarchies as well.
> 
>  if there is *anybody* over the top of *anybody* within a group, then
> by *definition* it has an "over-arching decision-maker", and thus is
> *by definition* no longer an an-archy.
> 

With this strict definition of anarchy instead of self-governance,
voluntary institutions etc., yes.

>> More
>> relevant here is that an anti-harassment policy / code of conduct is so
>> uncontroversial that having one helps and does not hurt for organizations.
> 
>  it's a slippery slope, and it's not going to happen - that's the end of it.
> 

I mostly wanted to have this discussion for convincing you that a code
of conduct is a good idea for a larger organization. Now, if you don’t
want to have a larger organization, then this does not matter.

>> I don’t think our opinions are far apart.
> 
>  florian: i have to say, i'm having difficulty coping with the
> different understandings that you have of certain words which are
> critical to the conversation.  with clarity of the understanding of
> words i find that from there it is easy to make logical deductions,
> even if those logical deductions "challenge the status quo" shall we
> say.
> 
>  but if for example you view "ethics" as being "socially optional" (as
> many people do) as opposed to being an objective higher standard /
> measure, or if you view the word "an-archy" to be anything other than
> "total acceptance by all within a group of personal self-determination
>

Re: [Arm-netbook] Future case idea: subnotebook/PDA with QWERTY keyboard

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/17/2016 04:08 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper
>  wrote:
>> Does anyone else here think it would be, on balance, a good idea to
>> adopt a Code of Conduct, perhaps based on the Contributor Covenant[0],
>> for some combination of: this mailing list; the Rhombus Tech wiki?
> 
> ok.  first thing that needs to be said: the wiki and the mailing list
> are there as resources (run by me) whose sole purpose is to support
> the goals of the EOMA initiative, for which (as the "Guardian of the
> EOMA Standards") i and i alone am currently directly responsible.
> "being nice" or "being inclusive" or "making people happy" is not a
> direct target, or a direct or indirect measure of success, in any way,
> as part of the responsibility of protecting the EOMA standards.
> 

A code of conduct is only useful if there are multiple administrators
who may disagree and decisions based on policy are needed. We have to
trust Lkcl anyway.

>> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
>> and
>> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122
> 
> i would be interested in an evaluation as to whether anyone feels that
> esr's comments are compatible with the Bill of Ethics.  my feeling is
> that they are, and that the "Contributor Covenant" most certainly is
> not.
> 
> l.
> 

They seem to be constructive (bill of ethics 3.10), but the first one
may also be a deliberate misunderstanding to convince others that
sexism/racism/… is OK (limiting the contributions and thus creativity of
affected people, see bill of rights 3.03). Accepting contributions
regardless of gender/race/… does not mean accepting contributions
regardless of quality. Criticism of meritocracy is mostly about
meritocracies not being real meritocracies, e.g. by favoring the loudest
over the silent, judging not on real merit but stereotypes, etc. (see [1]).

I don’t think creativity is the perfect basis for ethics though.

Regards,
Florian Pelz

[1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy


___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/17/2016 11:52 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>> It directly references skin color, religion etc. and
>> the term SJW clearly is about these -isms. Sexism etc. are selective
>> harm. The bill of rights is against harm.
> 
>  not quite: it's specifically against "reductions of truth,
> creativity, love and awareness" (those all being synonyms for the same
> underlying concept).  that's *not* quite the same thing as "harm".
> 
>  to illustrate the difference clearly: if you tell someone the truth
> when they don't want to hear it, do they get really upset?  can that
> be called "harm"? (it can).  thus, telling someone the truth may
> actually cause them "harm"!
> 

Well, yes. I oversimplified.

>> My point is, it seems to me the first esr link does not address the real
>> arguments made by “SJWs” but strawmen, perhaps deliberately, perhaps
>> not.
> 
>  you can see hints that his (esr's) mind knows that something's wrong
> with SJWs, and that he's trying to make sense of it.
> 

It is quite possible that esr’s comment was an honest comment meant to
be constructive instead of a deliberate misunderstanding. However, esr’s
arguments may be an appropriate response to a call for affirmative
action / positive discrimination, but no such call was made by the
“Social Justice Warriors”.

> anyway, my point is: i see absolutely no need for a "code of conduct",
> *especially* not one that even *identifies* -isms as being something
> that's necessary to acknowledge or even remotely consider as part of
> achieving the goal of ensuring the success of the EOMA initiative.  if
> the EOMA initiative *itself* were *defined* as being "the promotion of
> -isms" then and *only* then would "-isms" be absolutely critical.
> 
> however, as it is not, my feeling is that to remain *entirely -ism
> neutral* and i do mean utterly -ism independent, it is much better to
> not even *acknowledge the existence* of -isms than it is to try and
> become bogged down in defining them.  in quantum mechanics tunneling
> terms, if the particle "looks backwards" it cannot escape the quantum
> well.  only if it ignores the impossibly-high cliff wall entirely can
> it escape the trap.
> 
> 

When there are many administrators/moderators/employees/… who can make
decisions, having a clear policy protects decision makers from
accusations of not being impartial and makes it easier to complain about
bad decisions.

Yes, defining -isms is hard, therefore the best practice appears to be
to adopt a code of conduct written and tested by others with more
experience, see [2].

As I said, I don’t think adopting a CoC is useful if there is a single
decision maker though.

Regards,
Florian Pelz

[2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/22/2016 01:39 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> ---
> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:53 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, I consider it closed. I wanted a CoC to make sure we can avoid
>> disputes, so there’s no point in having one now.
> 
>  ok so i'm happy to continue this, because this is a different example
> from the others.  statement to be evaluated:
> 
>  "a code of conduct will help make sure that disputes are avoided".
> 
>  the rest of the sentence is logically inconsistent, so i'm going to
> ignore it.  as in: i don't see the connection - let me know if you
> feel it's relevant.

“I wanted a CoC to make sure we can avoid disputes, so there’s no point
in having *a dispute* now.” is what I meant.

>  so.  scenario (1) there's a code of conduct and a dispute comes up
> (because somebody violates the "code of conduct").  how then is it
> possible to *avoid* such a dispute arising... just because of the
> *existence* of the "code of conduct"?  if someone REALLY wants to
> start a dispute, first thing that they'll do is: IGNORE the "code of
> conduct"!
> 
>  therefore, the "dispute" still will occur, therefore it still has to
> be dealt with, therefore, logically, the *existence* of a "code of
> conduct" has absolutely nothing to do with "avoiding disputes".
> 
> 
> scenario (2) there's no code of conduct, there's nothing in place (at
> all) that's well-defined.  in this instance, anybody who REALLY WANTS
> to create a "dispute" will just pick a fight, no matter what.
> 
> thus, their DESIRE to create a "dispute" has absolutely nothing to
> with the EXISTENCE or otherwise of a "code of conduct".
> 
> 
> 
> scenario (3) there's the "bill of ethics" in place and a dispute comes
> up.  someone ignores _that_ and says something which is sufficiently
> offensive that it causes a massive distraction, in direct violation of
> the goal of "fulfilling the EOMA68 goals in strict-ethical fashion".
> is the "bill of ethics" sufficient to deal with this disruption?  yes
> it is (as demonstrated by the two examples given in the previous
> message).
> 

If there is a code of conduct, the dispute resolution process looks like
this: “What you did is *exactly* what is forbidden by the code of
conduct, so you are wrong. Case closed.” With just the bill of ethics,
you may have a discussion on whether it really causes a distraction or
whether the victim should just accept it instead of making a fuss. Now
that discussion may have the same result, but it is more demanding on
everyone, especially the victim.


> we still know that the "dispute" will still occur, we can't avoid
> *not* to deal with disputes, we might as well be ready *to* deal with
> them (because they are part of entropy), and the "bill of ethics" is
> (as best can be assessed so far) a reasonable framework on which to
> begin dealing with such.  so again, there is no problem.
> 
> 
> so scenario (1) and scenario (2) demonstrate that the desire to have a
> CoC so as to "avoid disputes" is logically inconsistent, i.e. the
> existence of a CoC or otherwise has absolutely no bearing on the
> desire to ensure that disputes are avoided.
> 
> 
> with the ability to *assess* the acceptability of *any* form of
> "conduct" being *derived* from the "Bill of Ethics", we can logically
> see that there is absolutely no need for a CoC.   as yet there have
> been no examples presented which contradict that, we go with "The
> Bill of Ethics".
> 
> l.
> 
> ___
> 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
> 


___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Why Free hardware fails

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 08/25/2016 05:29 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>  1846 and climing (yay!)  just looking at the numbers it's 1450 actual
> unique backers.  which is awesome.
> 

Unique orders or really unique backers, as in unique delivery addresses?
I have placed new orders when I thought of new uses for another card
(e.g. running a web/mail server from home). (Since you said you’d ship
them separately, I don’t think it matters for shipping; it’s just
surprising so many people ordered a card without case/cables/breakout
board/…)

> 
>> By the way, have you considered watching out for government procurements
>> once more cards are produced?
> 
>  i look forward to working with government organisations because
> embarrassingly it'll be one of the ways that they can guarantee that
> foreign agents can't compromise them through the hardware spying
> backdoors that THEY ARRANGED TO GO INTO INTEL PROCESSORS.
> 

Sadly I presume only cost savings and perhaps modular computing are
convincing to typical government organizations. They are legally bound
to save costs, but most officials presumably are not used to considering
backdoors a relevant problem and not easy to convince that EOMA68 is the
right solution.

>> Your EOMA68 cards probably are better and
>> cheaper thin clients for VNC than what my university currently uses
>> (which are too slow to handle VNC and only do plain X11).
> 
>  yeahh i've set up xrdp successfully on linux and then used rdesktop
> to connect, it handles logins and session disconnects really well.
> 
> l.
> 

This is great news. Thank you!

Regards,
Florian

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Why Free hardware fails

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 08/25/2016 09:17 PM, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
> I don't deny this, but what it's harder to believe for me is that a 
> government organization buys in a crowfunding campaign. So this may 
> come soon, but not yet. 
>  

I wanted to mention this as an idea for the future. EU government
organizations do procurements as long-term contracts on which companies
have to bid. The government organization will not seek out a company and
ask. On the other hand, winning a bid may secure as much funding as this
crowdfunding campaign. However, I’m not familiar enough with such bids,
so I may be wrong.

Regards,
Florian

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] CE markings

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

I’ve been told said colleague needed to have the electronics shipped to
another EU country first before it could go to Germany without customs
checking for a CE marking. Well, I don’t know if that’s actually true. I
hope this won’t cause problems. I have no knowledge about CE markings.

Regards,
Florian

___
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

[Arm-netbook] CE markings

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

A colleague of a friend of mine had problems getting some electronics
without CE marking through customs. Let me ask just to be on the safe
side: I presume the EOMA68-A20 and casings will have CE markings as
appropriate?

Regards,
Florian

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Certification Mark: My hat in the Ring

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

The EOMA logo making a statement about anything other than EOMA does not
seem like a good idea to me.

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Technoethical - a good-looking seller of HW with Libre SW & firmware (Technoethical holds RYF certification)

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 06:57:32AM -0400, zap wrote:
> On 07/06/2017 06:04 AM, dumblob wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just came across Technoethical (https://tehnoetic.com/ ) and was
> > surprised by the range of libre products they sell. Technoethical is
> > also RYF (https://ryf.fsf.org/ ) certified.
> >
> > Luke, it might be worth contacting them with EOMA notebooks.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > -- Jan
> Alas, the owner of that company says that eoma68-a20 is not libre
> hardware...
> 
> so I doubt he would be easy to convince... no maybe impossible even...
> 
> meh...
> 

I believe tct’s reasons for saying EOMA68-A20 isn’t libre will no
longer matter once it is released. Please don’t dismiss tct just for
having a different definition of libre.

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Totally derailed topic

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 04/24/2017 02:10 PM, Lyberta wrote:
> […]
> 
> But I never gave up. As long as I'm alive, I want to kill people. If I
> get a gun and go on a killing spree, I would be the life worth living.
> 
> […]

I’d suggest that you do some science to improve understanding of your
condition or that you help free software.

I mean, if nothing at all matters, then you can just as well live on and
do something that brings knowledge or enables others to do so.

If something matters, enabling you and society in general to gain
knowledge seems likely to help that cause that matters.

Besides, sometimes I’m angry and then I don’t trust myself to do the
right thing, so I better not do anything and instead wait until I feel
better. Your condition is of course far worse, but knowing when to trust
oneself to make decisions seems important to me.

Regards,
Florian

___
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

[Arm-netbook] Pangea Electronics

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Hi,

I told someone about EOMA68. When they Google searched for “modular
laptop“ in German, they got this:

http://pangeaelectronics.com/EN/index.html

I don’t know what you think of that or if they would care about
EOMA. To me the Web site looks more like they are interested in vendor
lock-in, but who knows.

Regards,
Florian

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Conflict-free minerals

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:15:06AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> many people have pointed
> out however a flaw in this logic, that copyright is a civil offense
> not a criminal offense.
> 

Actually I’m not so sure depending on the jurisdiction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_United_States

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Alt Webpage & Logo Combo

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:05:50AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 12:46:37 PM Alexander Ross wrote:
> > http://rhombus-tech.aross.me/webpagealt/
> 
> ...
> 
> > I combined to logos people made and also made some little mods of my
> > own. i feel quite happy with the outcome :) feedback good to hear, what
> > ya would like to do , how ya feel..
> 
> I'd just like to point out that I, and perhaps other people (and still some 
> systems) have a problem with light text on a darker background.
> 
> […]

If you are using GNOME, try fixing the font settings in
gnome-tweak-tool (subpixel rendering etc.).  Either way, others
recommend dark text on light background as well:

https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/53264/dark-or-white-color-theme-is-better-for-the-eyes#

Regards,
Florian

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Alt Webpage & Logo Combo

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 09:02:10AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> I guess it could be:
>* our eyes trained differently
>* our eyes function differently--I have astigmatism, but it is corrected 
> by 
> my glasses so I don't think that is a factor
>* different tools on our computers render the fonts differently?  (I'm not 
> sure I know what, in the end, actually renders the fonts on my computer--is 
> it 
> X (assuming my Wheezy installation is using X), or is it different for 
> different 
> apps?
> 

X is only used for font rendering in old applications like xterm.
Modern applications on GNU operating systems use HarfBuzz.

If yours is a technical issue, it is either your screen settings
(brightness/contrast), font settings (like antialiasing, subpixel
rendering) or really a bug in font rendering.  That said, I set my
desktop to use larger than default fonts so I don’t have issues.

I believe websites should use either default colors or custom colored
dark on light text like most websites.  Those who don’t like it can
override the stylesheet colors like they have to do for most websites,
i.e.

https://superuser.com/questions/318912/how-to-override-the-css-of-a-site-in-firefox-with-usercontent-css
___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Alt Webpage & Logo Combo

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 01:23:58PM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 03, 2018 11:10:06 AM pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 09:02:10AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I guess it could be:
> > >* our eyes trained differently
> > >* our eyes function differently--I have astigmatism, but it is
> > >corrected by
> > > 
> > > my glasses so I don't think that is a factor
> > > 
> > >* different tools on our computers render the fonts differently?  (I'm
> > >not
> > > 
> > > sure I know what, in the end, actually renders the fonts on my
> > > computer--is it X (assuming my Wheezy installation is using X), or is it
> > > different for different apps?
> > 
> > X is only used for font rendering in old applications like xterm.
> > Modern applications on GNU operating systems use HarfBuzz.
> 
> I said I wasn't going to post anymore, but I'm interested--I tried ps -Al } 
> grep HarfBuzz (and harfbuzz) on my Debian Wheezy system with kde--no sign of 
> it--does KDE use something else?
> 

KDE uses Qt which uses HarfBuzz.  You can see it in the dependencies at

https://packages.debian.org/sid/libqt5gui5

However HarfBuzz is not a separate process but runs as part of the
graphical application (it is a library), so you do not see it in
ps -Al.
___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Questioning The Holy War

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 11:22:33PM -0500, Christopher Havel wrote:
> Yet, almost every message on this list seems to carry with it the
> implication -- if not express statement -- that if a given application
> can't be openly audited on a remarkably low level by a random layperson at
> a random time and place -- leaving alone the fact that most ordinary
> individuals severely lack the knowledge and education required for that
> task -- it must therefore be evil and untrustworthy and oh god we can't
> have any of that sort of thing around here, shoo shoo...
>

There are many independent developers laypeople can pay to port,
inspect and change free software.

Regards,
Florian

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Questioning The Holy War

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 11:19:43AM -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 10:28:18AM -0500, Chris Tyler wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 7:07 AM Pablo Rath  wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 04:52:22PM -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 12:59:44PM +0100, Pablo Rath wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you know if the source is closed? :)
> > > >
> > > > Let's assume this is a real question.
> > >
> > > Hendrik, I am sorry. I see, I have phrased my (rhetoric) question
> > > poorly. What I meant and should have written is mor like: "How can you
> > > know if a
> > > software behaves well and doesn't shoot the cat when you can't audit the
> > > source code?"
> > >
> > 
> > I must point out an error here: Ken Thompson proved that auditing source
> > code (of software and the toolchain used to build it) is meaningless in his
> > paper "Reflections on Trusting Trust". That paper/talk was released 34
> > years ago, and it wasn't theoretical -- it was based on malware that he'd
> > successfully released into the wild many years before.
> 
> I remember reading that talk -- Wasn't it a Turing lecture? -- and I don't 
> recall him saying he actually did release that malware -- he just explained 
> what he *could* have done.  But he didn't deny it either.
> 
> Or do you have firther information on this?  If so I'd like to hear it.
> 
> Let me be pleased there is more than one C compiler in existence.  And that 
> it is undecidable whether an arbitrary piece of code actually compiles C, so 
> that his malware, should it exist, is limited in scope.
> 

This problem is one of the reasons why bootstrappable.org, GNU Mes and
such things exist so it is easier to detect when object code does not
correspond to source code.

Regards,
Florian

___
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