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
dos1's Avatar
Posts: 257 | Thanked: 2,053 times | Joined on Sep 2010 @ Warsaw, Poland
#1511
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 - https://dosowisko.net/
Long term Openmoko supporter. Owner of two Neo Freerunners, a few N900s and some others too.
Future owner of the Neo900
 

The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to dos1 For This Useful Post:
qwazix's Avatar
Moderator | Posts: 2,622 | Thanked: 5,447 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#1512
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; 2013-12-16 at 22:21.
 

The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to qwazix For This Useful Post:
Posts: 18 | Thanked: 15 times | Joined on Nov 2013 @ Hungary
#1513
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: 634 | Thanked: 3,266 times | Joined on May 2010 @ Colombia
#1514
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.
__________________
DebiaN900 - Native Debian on the N900. Deprecated in favour of Maemo Leste.

Maemo Leste for N950 and N9 (currently broken).
Devuan for N950 and N9.

Mobile devices with mainline Linux support - Help needed with documentation.

"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: 257 | Thanked: 2,053 times | Joined on Sep 2010 @ Warsaw, Poland
#1515
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 - https://dosowisko.net/
Long term Openmoko supporter. Owner of two Neo Freerunners, a few N900s and some others too.
Future owner of the Neo900
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to dos1 For This Useful Post:
Posts: 915 | Thanked: 3,209 times | Joined on Jan 2011 @ Germany
#1516
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: 461 | Thanked: 358 times | Joined on May 2010 @ Bilbao (Basque Country [Spain])
#1517
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; 2013-12-16 at 23:22.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to malkavian For This Useful Post:
joerg_rw's Avatar
Posts: 2,222 | Thanked: 12,651 times | Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3
#1518
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 14 Users Say Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post:
joerg_rw's Avatar
Posts: 2,222 | Thanked: 12,651 times | Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3
#1519
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:
javispedro's Avatar
Posts: 2,355 | Thanked: 5,249 times | Joined on Jan 2009 @ Barcelona
#1520
Originally Posted by wicket View Post
it should make a good excuse for another Slashdot submission, "FSF criticised for promoting user restrictions".
The fact that submission already happened with another Openmoko-related device is just icing...

Originally Posted by joerg_rw View Post
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.
The fact is, when you talk about "the Neo900", you're including this "peripheral." If the Neo900 had no such peripheral, and you/another company was shipping privative peripherals for it, I'm sure they'd see no problem in endorsing the Neo900 (it would be like the PC & Printer case you described). Albeit they may have problems endorsing you/that other company then

Originally Posted by dos1 View Post
We believe that it's better for user freedom to give him/her the ability to upgrade the firmware. We're convinced that any effort to make sure that "nothing can alter the radio modem's own software" is futile, because it would need us to trust the manufacturer anyway - and if we would trust the manufacturer, we wouldn't have to block it at all. We're proposing tight monitoring of what modem does instead. More about that in the article
False dichotomy. You could give the option to upgrade the firmware AND be endorsed by the FSF: create and ship a free firmware for the modem.

The position of the FSF is clear cut here. In their view, "Upgradable firmware" is just a weasel word for "software", and all software must be free. Period. They must draw the line somewhere.

Personally, I do see their point. Despite the clear chicken and egg problem here (because the FSF and even the FOSS movement in general have solved much more problematic chicken and egg problems). Obviously, we're all here to solve this chicken and egg problem, in our own ways....

Last edited by javispedro; 2013-12-17 at 09:47.
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to javispedro For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
neo900, thank you!

Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:54.