[FSFLA] Hyperbola: A fully free, stable, secure, simple, lightweight and long-term distribution

[Quiliro]

El Fri, 26 May 2017 12:51:55 -0400
willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net> escribió:

> Am 26/5/2017 um 03:11 schrieb Quiliro:
> > ...
> > Willi. I agree with you in all the above. Nevertheless, people must work how they like. If they see that in the future they would like to work together, insisting that they do today will not accelerate the process. If they work for libre software or libre hardware (Richard Stallman prefers the name free standard hardware) and not in a team, it is a pity. But if their part is libre, then it is a contribution and I feel the need to cheer those efforts.
> 
> Dear Quiliro and all,
> 
> we have two extremes in this space.
> 
> Many people want support free technology in soft and hard ware. They are 
> beginners, have not much experience, have no overview in this chaotic space.
> 
> There are some people, not much, with a deep inside view in this 
> technical questions and a big overview in the space.
> 
> The consequence like in many thematic areas is to prepare a cooperation 
> field. Not only think, free technolgy is a space of individulism and 
> egocentrism. With this attitude we will never break the walls and fences.
> 
> Of course, always the space of individual action exist. But we have our 
> common task to create a stable and transparent operating system, that 
> people can use and some of them can extend and optimise.
> 
> But this is more a coordination process of people in a group like FSFla. 
> FSFeu or FSFde is not able to help in this activities. But also we have 
> the hackerspaces, the makelab/fablab spaces. The 
> Technology/Hardware/Software Libre groups.
> 
> It is not, that i say, we should act against ego-actors. I propose to 
> act for our common needs in a common task. We can bring together the 
> best results in this time together with the list of instability, confuse 
> configuration, inoperable filesystem definitions, unpublished hardware 
> register level. Maybe, we can also create a hardware restricion based on 
> north/south bridges, grafic devices, peripheral devices. It is not 
> important, that this system work on every hardware scrap.
> 
> We can create a step to an optimal hardware. Based on a strong 
> verification. And, because we work for the communities, we work also for 
> the communal infocentros, the common space. In this environment we need 
> the kernel virtualisation, that people can use her prefered application.
> 
> We don't act for a free operating system as a dogma. We act for, because 
> we need it. That we know, what is going on in the network processing and 
> cpu processing list. We have to know, what process access the filesystem 
> and how.

I agree with all the above.

> But in the application space, there act other criterions. It is user 
> oriented. And if people need to use AutoCad or Archicad or any 
> electronic CAD software, they have to be able to do that.

I do not think this is necessary or even desireable. In order to work with freedom, we must replace all non-free elements. Every time we add non-free elements to our tools, we have to consider, not only the advancement of the particular project, but of all our autonomy. That is the reason why we must be firm on our conviction even if it is tempting to go with the easy to implement proposals and dogmas of false security, false functionality or false progress. We should carefully analize the global efect of any small action we take without preconceived ideas and bedazlement caused by novelty.

> In general, the hw-virtualisation can help us to separate the process 
> environments.

I suggest rather working with containers in GuixSD when it is production ready.

> The other space is the real time capability. This is very important if 
> we use this operating system in an physical/mechanical process 
> environment. But the cores are mostly always the same. Our acces and 
> interactions with network devices, external filesystem devices and other 
> peripheral data transport devices ist on the low level always the same.
> 
> In a private individual environment you will have never this wide 
> challenges. This we can create only in a group of people, they act in 
> different environments and bring together her requests and needs.
> 
> Or think for an infocentro. Many different people with very different 
> working styles use this resources. And it is not sure, that they can use 
> everery day the same computer. What we do?
> 
> We can use a live system, clear. But also, we can say, this person use 
> their personal configuration. And after start the have always the same 
> desktop and navigation tools, her specific application with her personal 
> data.
> 
> This means, every infocentro use a server, where the people create her 
> account. And if they act in another infocentro in another city they can 
> call her configuration and the path to her data. Only that is important.
> 
> And, how will a single person do that? It is impossible. This persons 
> never need it and are not able to create it.

I agree. And this has been implemented for users in cluster at the BioInformatics Lab in Dresden. Not sure of the name. Please check the Guix web page presentations.

-- 
Example of the problems in top posting:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

A: No.
Q: Should I leave quotations after my reply?

Saluton,
Quiliro
0987631031