Re: [qubes-users] Re: Qubes 4.0 / Qubes in general

['Tom Zander' via qubes-users]

On Monday, 5 February 2018 12:21:51 CET Tim W wrote:
> I am currently going thru all the setup script qubes build template
> options to find what templates compile correctly and what ones have bugs.
>  After that I am happy to write up a markdown page for how to compile and
> install the Qubes Controller and use it.  That can then be submitted to
> be added to the  Qubes 4.0 Docs.

Awesome!

You should be able to get a lot of detials from this;
https://github.com/QubesController/qubes-api-cpp-lib/blob/master/Install.md

-- 
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"qubes-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/1659041.GGZUbeKTOT%40strawberry.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[qubes-users] Re: Qubes 4.0 / Qubes in general

[Tim W]

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 4:37:26 AM UTC-5, rob_66 wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 12:17:41 -0800 (PST)
> Yuraeitha  wrote:
> 
> > I think discussion is good and healthy, though I don't feel it's entirely 
> > fair to paint it black
> > and white like this. I can agree on many problems, but I think they look 
> > very different in
> > different light and perspectives, so lets try shake it up a bit. I'm not 
> > claiming to be right,
> > this is just my perspective of things. 
> > 
> > The ancient city Rom wasn't build in one day, it took many decades and even 
> > centuries. And as
> > awokd said, the security in Qubes is rapidly evolving in short time, which 
> > is hard to deny. Qubes
> > is heavily disrupting the security industry, which has been too stagnant 
> > and slowly reactive
> > developing over many years, rather than a proactive forward looking 
> > perspective, which Qubes has. 
> > 
> > The priority is first and foremost security, right? Everything else besides 
> > that is pretty much
> > secondary or lower. Ease of use and emotional related things, such as good 
> > looking and appeal,
> > will come even lower than secondary (don't get me wrong though, I do love 
> > good looking systems
> > too my self). 
> > 
> > While the Qubes OS team could need more funding and donations, I don't 
> > think they are feeling
> > ready yet to go and market themselves before the security is on an even 
> > higher level. And this I
> > think is very justified in a logical sense seen from an understanding of 
> > market perspective, once
> > you start market it, if the security isn't good enough, then Qubes will 
> > just become a short-lived
> > fire-fly that only lives 24 hours, before everyone forgets about it again. 
> > For proper marketing,
> > you need to be ready before spreading the hype. This is why many open 
> > source projects dye out
> > too, they don't live long enough to be ready to deliver, or they deliver 
> > too early or too late.
> > As I see it, the Qubes developers are currently doing a good job enduring. 
> > Security is also the
> > main target group to begin with too, so I feel it's overall very justified 
> > to focus all their
> > energy on security and secondary ease-of-use problems, important mainstream 
> > hardware support, and
> > so on.
> > 
> > We're in early times, and as I see it, currently the fundamentals are being 
> > build in Qubes. The
> > structure which everything else ontop will be changed in the future. I 
> > think it's very wrong to
> > look at Qubes 4 as how Qubes will look like in the future. This is a deep 
> > mistake from other
> > Linux OS's which are very conservative, unchanging, and by all means have 
> > an ingrained reactive
> > thinking pattern, rather than proactively thinking pattern. I think the 
> > Qubes developers have a
> > good forward looking foresight, and this is part of the reason why I like 
> > it so much. But for
> > this reason too, Qubes is often misunderstood if they do things in Qubes 4, 
> > which may first show
> > its full potential in Qubes 5 or Qubes 6.
> > 
> > There is also the question of how much of this is upstream issues? Not 
> > everything is Qubes to
> > fix, and it certainly would be ill advized to start doing what for example 
> > Red Hat is doing and
> > change the code, which has to be done everytime a new update arrives from 
> > upstream. Although I
> > have to admit I have little understanding of codes. 
> > 
> > Also currently we're still seeing rapid development of security in Qubes, 
> > and it's still going.
> > The primary developers of Qubes are busy, so I don't think it's justified 
> > to say any should shift
> > focus to fix lower priority nice looks and appeals, like icons (although I 
> > do enjoy good looking
> > systems, but it's too soon as there are other things to be done in Qubes 
> > first). Why are other
> > developers from the outside not helping with this? The Qubes developers are 
> > busy enough with the
> > security aspect as it is after all. Also if more people helped, and more 
> > put up donations
> > (avoiding too early wide-spread hype though, there is a good timing for 
> > everything), then perhaps
> > we can get issues fixed like missing icons, and so earlier than otherwise.
> > 
> > Which programs and apps can't you run in Qubes? I mean, I can even run 
> > Android with Android
> > apps, it's pretty amazing. What sort of programs do you have that can't run 
> > that well on Qubes?
> > Maybe it can be fixed? 
> > 
> > Lets not forget, Qubes 4 was about future-proofing Qubes. Currently many 
> > things need to be
> > fixed again after having ripped everything apart and putting it together 
> > with many new parts and
> > design shape. Qubes 4 is in many ways, in my understanding, really about 
> > making the upcoming
> > Qubes 5 and onward possible, which is to say, Qubes 4 may not seem so 
> > special, but I'm sure it
> > will start to show and build up