Poll: How much would you be willing to pay for a Neo900 (complete device) with TI DM3730 1GHz/512M-RAM/1GB
Poll Options
How much would you be willing to pay for a Neo900 (complete device) with TI DM3730 1GHz/512M-RAM/1GB

Reply
Thread Tools
wicket's Avatar
Posts: 116 | Thanked: 357 times | Joined on May 2010 @ Colombia
#1511
Originally Posted by joerg_rw View Post
Wicket,
Mr Stallman mailed me, asking about all the FSF rules and if they are satisfied by Neo900. I answered that all are met but the modem firmware update that we will offer (according to what the modem module can do: update firmware via USB), that we can't change that since we can't evaluate the hardware internals to make sure whatever we do will reliably forbid manipulations to the firmware (write-enable pins may not have the expected effect, even if they existed), and that I think the firmware must be considered "rogue" by definition (you never know what's in there, even on genuine firmware) and thus we follow another approach of tight monitoring of the modem's activities from very beginning, which will tell us when the modem misbehaves even with genuine firmware.
I received no answer to that from Mr Stallman yet, after one week.

So that's what you might assume is what FSF and Mr Stallman think about Neo900:
They like our project since it's striving for freedom and openness, but they don't want to further care about it and answer to us, when we can't fulfill their requirements, even when those requirements are impossible to fulfill.

Here a complete quote of my 2 original answers to first and second mail from Mr Stallman (I received and answered 2nd mail first, thus my answer to 1st mail refers to my answer to 2nd):



And here as an example a complete quote of my answer to another mail I received at 2013-12-07 03:58 from "anon" user [color and bold added by me for this post]:
Jörg,

Thanks for the detailed reply and for once again providing full transparency.

> If the modem firmware can't be changed, it is effectively in ROM, so
> it might as well be a circuit. It doesn't need to be considered
> as software. For instance, the FSF can disregard it when judging
> whether to endorse a product.
It's not that I didn't believe you before but I'm really quite shocked that RMS would write and endorse such drivel that goes against most of their principles. I'm looking forward to reading the paper, it should make a good excuse for another Slashdot submission, "FSF criticised for promoting user restrictions".
__________________
Neo900 - Successor to the N900 as the next evolution in mobile computing.
Own your phone, don't let it own you! It doesn't seem so expensive when you put it into perspective. Pre-order/donate now!

"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." - Henry Spencer
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wicket For This Useful Post:
dos1's Avatar
Posts: 224 | Thanked: 1,825 times | Joined on Sep 2010 @ Poznań, Poland
#1512
Originally Posted by wicket View Post
I'm looking forward to reading the paper, it should make a good excuse for another Slashdot submission, "FSF criticised for promoting user restrictions".
[speaking privately now]

That's not the purpose of the paper and I won't put my name under anything that's worded in such way. I believe that FSF is well-intended and I respect them not only for what they did past 30 years, but also for what they're doing now. Still, it's Free Software Foundation, so I wouldn't expect them to be infallible about the hardware. In fact, no one is infallible about any topic - and I believe we found a rule that does very little (or maybe even nothing at all) about user privacy, so we think it shouldn't be promoted in the name of it.

I (we?) would like to raise the discussion about this topic, but without doing any finger-pointing. It's not about FSF. It's about technical discussion on what we can do to respect privacy of our users. After all, it might turn out that there in fact is something we couldn't come up with that FSF already had in mind when stating such rules - we're also humans and we can also be wrong. So please, keep it technical!
__________________
Sebastian Krzyszkowiak - http://dosowisko.net/
Long term Openmoko supporter. Owner of two Neo Freerunners and two N900s (without USB).
Future owner of the Neo900
 

The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to dos1 For This Useful Post:
qwazix's Avatar
Moderator | Posts: 2,620 | Thanked: 5,383 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#1513
My take is that Neo900 team and FSF are speaking different languages regarding the last point. Neo900 team proposes something that would provide the best possible privacy, while the FSF, to endorse anything requires all the software to be free. I think we are in a situation that the FSF really likes the project, wants to endorse it, and is trying to find a loophole in it's own guidelines to do so.

By christening the modem "circuit" it doesn't make the problem any less, it just moves the problem out of the jurisdiction of the FSF and into that of one imaginary FHF.

If there is another, saner way to actually be compliant with the FSF guidelines and at the same time ensure decent privacy, IMO it would benefit both parties.
__________________
Proud coding competition 2012 winner: ρcam
My other apps: speedcrunch N9 N900 Jolla –– contactlaunch –– timenow

Nemo UX blog: Grog
My website: qwazix.com
My job: oob

Last edited by qwazix; 12-16-2013 at 06:21 PM.
 

The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to qwazix For This Useful Post:
Posts: 13 | Thanked: 9 times | Joined on Nov 2013 @ Hungary
#1514
Hello!

I just recently got hold of an N900, i wanted it for really long for its features. It turned out its more comfortable than my android based phone, thats also a reason why i follow this thread, and i am sure that i want a Neo900 when its ready.

But... i dont know, i feel like this level of privacy security is unnecessary for a normal user. Or the struggle to reach it. I know there is a big fuss around this topic but it feels like overreaction for me.

Its just my toughts about it, i am more interested in a working device with sane amount of secure privacy than perfect privacy on papers/plans.
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to viktor80 For This Useful Post:
wicket's Avatar
Posts: 116 | Thanked: 357 times | Joined on May 2010 @ Colombia
#1515
Originally Posted by dos1 View Post
[speaking privately now]

That's not the purpose of the paper and I won't put my name under anything that's worded in such way. I believe that FSF is well-intended and I respect them not only for what they did past 30 years, but also for what they're doing now. Still, it's Free Software Foundation, so I wouldn't expect them to be infallible about the hardware. In fact, no one is infallible about any topic - and I believe we found a rule that does very little (or maybe even nothing at all) about user privacy, so we think it shouldn't be promoted in the name of it.

I (we?) would like to raise the discussion about this topic, but without doing any finger-pointing. It's not about FSF. It's about technical discussion on what we can do to respect privacy of our users. After all, it might turn out that there in fact is something we couldn't come up with that FSF already had in mind when stating such rules - we're also humans and we can also be wrong. So please, keep it technical!
I too respect the FSF which is why I am surprised by their argument on read-only firmware not counting as software. Sorry for my headline suggestion, it was a bit radical and I did not mean to represent this project in a bad way.
__________________
Neo900 - Successor to the N900 as the next evolution in mobile computing.
Own your phone, don't let it own you! It doesn't seem so expensive when you put it into perspective. Pre-order/donate now!

"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." - Henry Spencer
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wicket For This Useful Post:
dos1's Avatar
Posts: 224 | Thanked: 1,825 times | Joined on Sep 2010 @ Poznań, Poland
#1516
Originally Posted by viktor80 View Post
Hello!

I just recently got hold of an N900, i wanted it for really long for its features. It turned out its more comfortable than my android based phone, thats also a reason why i follow this thread, and i am sure that i want a Neo900 when its ready.

But... i dont know, i feel like this level of privacy security is unnecessary for a normal user. Or the struggle to reach it. I know there is a big fuss around this topic but it feels like overreaction for me.

Its just my toughts about it, i am more interested in a working device with sane amount of secure privacy than perfect privacy on papers/plans.
That's understandable. The majority of the society thinks in this way I guess

However, there are also people who really care about their privacy. User freedom we want to provide with Neo900 contains also the freedom to decide on how paranoid the user wants to be about his/her privacy and we're happy to assist them in pursuing the perfect device for them. After all, what does all this freedom mean when we don't care about such basic thing as privacy around ones mobile phone?

Don't worry. Joerg and Nikolaus aren't stopping their work just to focus on privacy It won't also affect anyone who don't care or simply don't care as much about it - you can just ignore all those "omg-so-amazing-privacy-stuff" if you want. It's just one of the topics we're working on, one out of many - and it was there from the very beginning.

Anyway, thank you for your support!
__________________
Sebastian Krzyszkowiak - http://dosowisko.net/
Long term Openmoko supporter. Owner of two Neo Freerunners and two N900s (without USB).
Future owner of the Neo900
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to dos1 For This Useful Post:
Posts: 477 | Thanked: 1,100 times | Joined on Jan 2011 @ Germany
#1517
Originally Posted by viktor80 View Post
this level of privacy security is unnecessary for a normal user. Or the struggle to reach it. I know there is a big fuss around this topic but it feels like overreaction for me.

Its just my toughts about it, i am more interested in a working device with sane amount of secure privacy than perfect privacy on papers/plans.
From what I understand implementing the super-paranoid privacy features (with considering modem a black box) is trivial compared to the difficulties of sourcing the missing parts and proper technical hardware testing.
So iff all the parts can be sourced and the HW design will reach its final stages privacy will pretty much just be icing on the cake.

I, for one like sweets, but nothing will stop you from using your Neo900 for automated GPS-based facebook status updates every few seconds.

After having written this the fact that Google and Apple will not grant you that super-paranoid privacy which wouldn't cost them any extra money makes me even more paranoid.
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to sulu For This Useful Post:
Posts: 320 | Thanked: 173 times | Joined on May 2010 @ Bilbao (Basque Country [Spain])
#1518
The more the project advance, the more I am interested, and less in Jolla. To have so good privacy is an unexpected and appreciated extra . I love the resistive screen, having the zoom on volume keys, the fm transmiter...

About the modem and FSF, I think that the solution proposed of monitoring and controling the modem, it's better than FSF ask, so explaining that to them, maybe RMS and FSF will love it.

The three things that stop me from for participating are:

1-Not having for sure 1Gb RAM.
2-The price seems high but maybe having an N900 (sadly with a broken usb port, surviving with external charger) will reduce the final price.
3- Not being sure of having a modern free (libre) OS. I like Maemo, but I am hypnotized with SailfishOS XD.

But I will continue here, promoting it by publications in Google+ and if this continue improving at this rate, and reach to 1Gb RAM, maybe I won't have any excuse to not paying whatever is needed to have it in my hands XD.

Great work Thanks, sincerely.

Last edited by malkavian; 12-16-2013 at 07:22 PM.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to malkavian For This Useful Post:
joerg_rw's Avatar
Community Council | Posts: 1,749 | Thanked: 9,376 times | Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3
#1519
Originally Posted by malkavian View Post
[...]
The three things that stop me from for participating are:

1-Not having for sure 1Gb RAM.
2-The price seems high but maybe having an N900 (sadly with a broken usb port, surviving with external charger) will reduce the final price.
3- Not being sure of having a modern free (libre) OS. I like Maemo, but I am hypnotized with SailfishOS XD.
[...]
1. (1GB [not Gb] RAM) Since this is a much requested feature and we finally found a way and components to do it, you can consider the probability that we will get 1GB RAM at around 95%. Doing a preorder will greatly improve the probability since the RAM is easier to source in 1000 quantities and we could do this when phase-V completed.

2. The difference in price between the bare GTA04-NeoN board to DIY-retrofit into your N900 and a complete Neo900 incl case and stuff from N900 will be around 150EUR at least. Of course you can make excellent use of a broken N900 with defect USB like this. And each single donation makes the device less expensive - again see rationale given in phase-V

3. Some guys already ported sailfishOS/Nemo to N950 and N9 and I have no doubt somebody will do same porting as soon as they get their hands onto a Neo900 with sufficient RAM. Particularly now that Neo900 will even support multitouch for pinch/rotate-gestures

You could consider the 100EUR donation like a season ticket to watch and contribute and participate (and of course support and make happen) one of the most exciting and entertaining projects of the last few years, and odds are in the end you even get your value back in form of a great device you can order discounted by 106 or 110 EUR. Your arguments to not do it seem to vanish like snow in the sun

Thanks for your interest and support
cheers
jOERG
 

The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post:
joerg_rw's Avatar
Community Council | Posts: 1,749 | Thanked: 9,376 times | Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3
#1520
Originally Posted by qwazix View Post
My take is that Neo900 team and FSF are speaking different languages regarding the last point. Neo900 team proposes something that would provide the best possible privacy, while the FSF, to endorse anything requires all the software to be free. I think we are in a situation that the FSF really likes the project, wants to endorse it, and is trying to find a loophole in it's own guidelines to do so.

By christening the modem "circuit" it doesn't make the problem any less, it just moves the problem out of the jurisdiction of the FSF and into that of one imaginary FHF.

If there is another, saner way to actually be compliant with the FSF guidelines and at the same time ensure decent privacy, IMO it would benefit both parties.
I wholeheartedly agree with every word you wrote :-)
The problem is in FSF's definition of own "territory". In my book it's not their call to judge about peripherals, no matter how closely integrated or remotely attached those peripherals are mechanically. For every normal user it's pretty clear that the printer for example is irrelevant for evaluating FOSS properies of the PC and the OS running on that (unless it's a GDI aka "windows" printer). Likewise it's not relevant what firmware is running on the USB UMTS dongle you plug into your PC. Now what we did is moving the dongle inside the case but it still is a USB dongle for all the logical/IT properties. FSF needs a better more sharp definition of what they consider "system" and what's "peripheral" and not relevant to them. We (Neo900 team) can't help with that.

/j
 

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
neo900, thank you!

Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:05 PM.