| 05:43.00 | *** join/#neo900 b1101 (~b@fsf/member/b1101) |
| 07:34.00 | *** join/#neo900 che1 (~che@p5B071EF1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 08:01.40 | *** join/#neo900 Kabouik (~quassel@147.99.218.243) |
| 09:07.59 | *** join/#neo900 jonwil (~jonwil@27-33-80-219.tpgi.com.au) |
| 09:15.53 | *** join/#neo900 mva (mva@gentoo/contributor/mva) |
| 09:37.06 | *** join/#neo900 che1 (~che@46.128.35.165.dynamic.cablesurf.de) |
| 09:43.06 | *** join/#neo900 DocAvalanche (~lagrange@openmoko/engineers/joerg) |
| 09:43.06 | *** mode/#neo900 [+v DocAvalanche] by ChanServ |
| 09:44.22 | *** join/#neo900 misv_ (~ms@h-62-144.a259.priv.bahnhof.se) |
| 09:47.45 | *** join/#neo900 x29a (~x29a@unaffiliated/x29a) |
| 10:21.12 | *** join/#neo900 M13 (~MirandaLS@83.149.38.115) |
| 10:29.35 | *** join/#neo900 mva (mva@gentoo/contributor/mva) |
| 10:30.37 | *** join/#neo900 kolp (~quassel@55d440e2.access.ecotel.net) |
| 12:55.49 | *** join/#neo900 mvaenskae (~mvaenskae@unaffiliated/mvaenskae) |
| 13:36.56 | *** join/#neo900 b1101 (~b@fsf/member/b1101) |
| 13:44.17 | *** join/#neo900 che1 (~che@46.128.35.165.dynamic.cablesurf.de) |
| 14:24.40 | *** join/#neo900 flo7ian (549fc720@gateway/web/freenode/ip.84.159.199.32) |
| 14:31.50 | *** join/#neo900 che1 (~che@g200.tum.vpn.lrz.de) |
| 14:43.47 | DocScrutinizer05 | flo7ian: for now we offer CVBS-out via AV-connector. This is OK for connecting to usual TV (I've watched several episodes of DrHouse this way, from my N900). For digital display connection we still check our options |
| 14:44.38 | DocScrutinizer05 | the basic problem with digital video out is: OMAP3 doesn't support it |
| 14:45.08 | DocScrutinizer05 | since it has only one digital display interface and that one usually is connected to the LCD display |
| 14:46.50 | DocScrutinizer05 | so whatever display connector we might come up with, it wll either use same frequency and resolution like the built-in LCD and just duplicate the content of that screen, or we need to disable the internal display to allow other possibly higher resolution formats on such connector |
| 14:49.00 | DocScrutinizer05 | of course there's still the concept of USB attached video cards, which basically means "streaming of whatever digital media format (mp2, whatever) via USB to an external decoder" |
| 14:54.25 | DocScrutinizer05 | flo7ian: you notice me highlighting you in here? |
| 14:54.43 | *** join/#neo900 flo7ian (549fc720@gateway/web/freenode/ip.84.159.199.32) |
| 14:58.39 | mvaenskae | DocScrutinizer05: maybe re-highlight him, on my connection he had a dc just before you messaged him :) |
| 14:58.55 | DocScrutinizer05 | hmmm |
| 14:58.59 | DocScrutinizer05 | flo7ian: you notice me highlighting you in here? |
| 14:59.44 | DocScrutinizer05 | mvaenskae: yeah, on #maemo I got [2014-07-30 Wed 16:54:24] <-- flo7ian (549fc720@gateway/web/freenode/ip.84.159.199.32) has left this server (Quit: Page closed). |
| 14:59.59 | DocScrutinizer05 | but here same user still is in user list |
| 15:03.57 | flo7ian | DocScrutinizer05: I'm using irc not very often :-) |
| 15:04.24 | DocScrutinizer05 | I gathered that :-) np |
| 15:04.34 | DocScrutinizer05 | you see my answer? |
| 15:04.45 | DocScrutinizer05 | above |
| 15:05.10 | flo7ian | DocScrutinizer05: No, I switched to this channel after your answer |
| 15:05.42 | DocScrutinizer05 | a pity :-) I'll repost to you in a private channel. a new tab will pop up on your irc client |
| 15:05.44 | flo7ian | DocScrutinizer05: can I go up using the web interface? |
| 15:06.00 | *** join/#neo900 jormungandr (~henry@213.23.120.114) |
| 15:07.02 | DocScrutinizer05 | probably not |
| 15:07.22 | DocScrutinizer05 | but I sent you a copy in a private channel |
| 15:07.32 | DocScrutinizer05 | you already should have received it |
| 15:09.01 | DocScrutinizer05 | alas our channel logging ( http://infobot.rikers.org/%23neo900/ ) isn't realtime |
| 15:09.24 | DocScrutinizer05 | we might change/fix that soonish |
| 15:09.59 | DocScrutinizer05 | as it's now you can watch the log of today after 00:00 UTC tonight ;-) |
| 15:10.37 | DocScrutinizer05 | flo7ian: thanks for your interest in Neo900 |
| 15:12.23 | FIQ | except when infobot is dead |
| 15:13.23 | DocScrutinizer05 | FIQ: yeah |
| 15:13.46 | DocScrutinizer05 | luckily this happened rather rarely lately, and then usually not for too long |
| 15:13.47 | flo7ian | DocScrutinizer05: if you care for privacy on mobile devices it is a logical consequence to be interested in Neo900 :-) |
| 15:14.11 | DocScrutinizer05 | yes, out focus shifted towards this aspect lately |
| 15:14.16 | DocScrutinizer05 | our* |
| 15:14.53 | DocScrutinizer05 | we take pride in assuming our device is the best you can get regarding privacy |
| 15:15.40 | mvaenskae | it was an inevitable outcome with creating a well-designed device which respects freedom of choice :) |
| 15:15.51 | DocScrutinizer05 | actually we offer some *very* unique technology to enhance control over your own privacy |
| 15:16.20 | DocScrutinizer05 | mvaenskae: basically yes |
| 15:16.29 | DocScrutinizer05 | but we pushed even further |
| 15:17.12 | DocScrutinizer05 | "survey the surveyors" ;-) |
| 15:17.12 | mvaenskae | i wonder if the seL4 microkernel will run on the neo900 (it should support armv6) |
| 15:17.46 | DocScrutinizer05 | well, does it run on OMAP3? |
| 15:17.51 | dos1 | AFAIK yes |
| 15:18.04 | dos1 | it works on beagleboard |
| 15:18.05 | mvaenskae | DocScrutinizer05: it should support the omap3 beagleboard |
| 15:18.18 | DocScrutinizer05 | then it runs on Neo900 too |
| 15:18.51 | DocScrutinizer05 | we're basically a "beagleboard", just much better and larger ;-) |
| 15:19.21 | dos1 | Neo900 actually uses the same CPU as BeagleBoard-xM |
| 15:20.03 | DocScrutinizer05 | and the proto_v2 will in fact use the BB-xM for remote-attached "brain" |
| 15:20.16 | mvaenskae | stallman doesn't use any mobile phones due to privacy concerns, right? i wonder what he thinks of the neo900 |
| 15:20.34 | DocScrutinizer05 | you didn't see his mail to us, eh? |
| 15:20.50 | mvaenskae | DocScrutinizer05: remote-attach "brain"? you have a brain-to-hardware interface? :o |
| 15:21.19 | mvaenskae | DocScrutinizer05: either i didn't saw it or i forgot what he mentioned there :) |
| 15:21.28 | dos1 | more! the plan is to further integrate the brain into neo900! ;) |
| 15:21.31 | mvaenskae | s/saw/see |
| 15:22.14 | DocScrutinizer05 | http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=1396903&highlight=Stallman#post1396903 |
| 15:22.46 | mvaenskae | thank you for the link :) |
| 15:23.05 | DocScrutinizer05 | > This is a big step forward in privacy. Whether it is good enough that |
| 15:23.07 | DocScrutinizer05 | > I would be willing to carry one, I don't know. Nonetheless, I am |
| 15:23.08 | DocScrutinizer05 | > strongly in favor of it, and I am willing to say so. Where and how |
| 15:23.10 | DocScrutinizer05 | > should I say so? |
| 15:32.11 | mvaenskae | well, this surely is nice to hear :) the fsf should be promoting and supporting you more |
| 15:34.22 | *** join/#neo900 SAiF (~SAiF@117.196.145.90) |
| 15:36.27 | bencoh | it should |
| 15:37.34 | mvaenskae | and the eff, if they want to change the mobile landscape and prevent providers from snooping on you, there needs to be at least some start |
| 15:40.43 | dos1 | I guess for FSF some binary blobs may be an issue, even when not really related to privacy |
| 15:41.14 | dos1 | but contacting EFF sounds like it could be a good idea |
| 15:41.46 | mvaenskae | dos1: what binary blobs? |
| 15:43.15 | dos1 | when the firmware in the modem can be upgraded, FSF considers it "non-free software" |
| 15:43.57 | dos1 | and PHS8/PXS8/PLS8 have firmware upgrade functionality |
| 15:44.40 | mvaenskae | do they see intel processors as well as unfree due to their property of changing microcode? |
| 15:44.48 | dos1 | there's also wifi that needs its firmware to be uploaded into the chip, like on gta04 |
| 15:45.30 | mvaenskae | oh, the usual wifi troubles... >.> |
| 15:45.34 | dos1 | mvaenskae: well, I don't think there's any intel based device on their list of endorsed hardwarersed |
| 15:45.44 | dos1 | hardware* wtf :D |
| 15:45.50 | mvaenskae | well, i'll be back in a bit, gotta fetch a small snack :) |
| 15:47.55 | dos1 | and to make the topic complete, the optional 3D acceleration needs non-free drivers |
| 15:48.15 | *** join/#neo900 RiD (~RiD@2.83.62.95) |
| 15:49.07 | dos1 | in theory, two last ones could be reverse engineered and replaced with free versions |
| 15:49.26 | flo7ian | what du you think about this comment https://blog.torproject.org/blog/mission-impossible-hardening-android-security-and-privacy#comment-55309 |
| 15:50.02 | MonkeyofDoom | dos1: we'd need some hacker as talented as those doing Mali stuff to spend some years on the SGX, no? |
| 15:50.10 | DocScrutinizer05 | ((<mvaenskae> do they see intel processors as well as unfree due to their property of changing microcode?)) I think they got an explicit waiver for microcode |
| 15:51.14 | dos1 | MonkeyofDoom: I guess so. there was some initial work started on free SGX driver, but it was already a few years ago and it stalled |
| 15:52.20 | dos1 | which is sad, cause it would make quite a lot of interesting hardware even more "free" - beagleboard, n900, gta04, neo900... |
| 15:53.05 | MonkeyofDoom | yeah, they're all over... I wish I had the skills to help with a reverse-engineering effort |
| 15:53.13 | dos1 | but fortunately framebuffer works well without any closed blobs |
| 15:53.28 | DocScrutinizer05 | flo7ian: this post is non-relevant since it misses the point. when smebody can "trick the main OS" to do silly stuff, you're totally and 100% screwed already |
| 15:53.44 | dos1 | so there's no requirement to use it, especially when distros like SHR and QtMoko already work very smoothly |
| 15:53.47 | MonkeyofDoom | yeah, I'm running Arch on my N900 with just the framebuffer and even Wayland/Weston will run on it |
| 15:54.01 | MonkeyofDoom | (which seems smoother than X :)) |
| 15:54.11 | DocScrutinizer05 | or OSes however are 100% FOSS and so it's completely up to user to not allow such USB-driver trickery |
| 15:54.20 | DocScrutinizer05 | our* |
| 15:55.21 | dos1 | making X replacement that is smoother than X is not a big achievement - make a fully working X compatibility layer in this replacement that still works smoother than pure X and that will impress me! :D |
| 15:56.50 | DocScrutinizer05 | flo7ian: that concern basically is similar to "we don't know if this kernel is safe since we cannot know if user can get tricked into flashing another kernel that offers a vulnerability" |
| 15:57.31 | dos1 | flo7ian: yes, as Doc says. the user has full control over the OS he runs, just like on your average PC, so when it comes to software the user can choose to install and configure something vulnerable, or something safe |
| 15:58.07 | dos1 | you can make a perfectly secure hardware and run vanila, unupgraded windows xp on it while being connected to the internet |
| 15:58.14 | dos1 | it probably won't be very secure after all :) |
| 15:58.23 | DocScrutinizer05 | and the modem attached to PC/Neo900 via USB doesn't create any sort of immanent threat |
| 15:58.54 | dos1 | but since the device is open, you can run what you want, so you can even configure the software completely to your needs and worries |
| 16:00.19 | modem | dos1, does the neo900 have some kind of proprietary library talking to the baseband ? |
| 16:00.26 | modem | Such as libsamsung-ril for android ? |
| 16:00.38 | dos1 | so when you, like this commented, are worried about modem presenting itself as a HID device to type some commands into your xterm when you don't look at your device, you can simply configure udev (or whatever else you're using) to not enumerate anything that's not a standard modem interface on that usb port |
| 16:00.41 | dos1 | modem: no |
| 16:00.49 | modem | you have free version ? |
| 16:00.51 | modem | replicant one ? |
| 16:01.04 | DocScrutinizer05 | modem: it talks simple AT command set via a ttyACM |
| 16:01.08 | dos1 | modem: the modem talks via either standard AT interface or propertary QMI protocol |
| 16:01.19 | dos1 | however, this protocol has free implementation anyway |
| 16:01.43 | modem | the baseband has no such things as DMA capability or unrestricted I/O access ? |
| 16:01.46 | dos1 | and you can do everything via AT on serial as well, without using any QMI |
| 16:01.51 | dos1 | no such thing |
| 16:01.56 | dos1 | it's connected via USB |
| 16:01.57 | DocScrutinizer05 | modem: NOOOO WAAAY! :-D |
| 16:02.10 | dos1 | so it's just like a usb dongle connected to the laptop |
| 16:02.15 | modem | some baseband also shares a part of the RAM |
| 16:02.23 | DocScrutinizer05 | not ours |
| 16:02.25 | modem | you should push that point to RMS |
| 16:02.30 | DocScrutinizer05 | we did |
| 16:02.35 | dos1 | our one is simply a separate module |
| 16:02.51 | dos1 | just soldered onto the same board as the cpu |
| 16:03.20 | DocScrutinizer05 | yes, our problem is that we refuse to cut up the PCB to make the modem detachable |
| 16:03.53 | DocScrutinizer05 | otherwise it wouldn't differ from any other PC with option to plug in a USB WWAN dongle |
| 16:04.11 | modem | DocScrutinizer05, i think you need the FSF approval, that's a big chance but also that's a big chances for the FSF being able to show a guaranteed "phone" |
| 16:04.14 | dos1 | however, i'm not sure my last statement was right, as we will have two pcbs ;) |
| 16:04.32 | DocScrutinizer05 | --- well --- our security concept is sth you won't get on a USB dobgle though |
| 16:04.53 | modem | the fact that most computer does come with standalone hardware with ability to control the CPU, or the RAM (basically the OS) is infecting the world of computer security really bad |
| 16:04.54 | dos1 | depending on what you mean by "FSF approval" we either can or can't get it |
| 16:04.59 | modem | and FSF is fighting for that fact |
| 16:05.07 | DocScrutinizer05 | dos1: yes, indeed the modem is detachable from CPU PCB |
| 16:05.09 | modem | i think it merge your will for user privacy in general |
| 16:05.14 | dos1 | neo900 is unfortunately uncompatible with their Respects Your Privacy program |
| 16:05.24 | dos1 | incompatible* |
| 16:05.44 | DocScrutinizer05 | modem: http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=1396903&highlight=Stallman#post1396903 |
| 16:06.07 | dos1 | due to things I've mentioned, like upgradable modem firmware |
| 16:06.44 | dos1 | but maybe they'll still encourage it less formally, as a best available option |
| 16:06.47 | DocScrutinizer05 | Respects Your Freedom |
| 16:06.47 | dos1 | it's up to them ;) |
| 16:06.52 | dos1 | oh, right |
| 16:06.53 | DocScrutinizer05 | right? |
| 16:07.20 | dos1 | it's Freedom indeed |
| 16:08.33 | DocScrutinizer05 | modem: some of the requirements of RYF are set up to justify why fraa SOFTware foundation is authorized to certify this piece of HARDware. |
| 16:08.44 | DocScrutinizer05 | free* |
| 16:09.11 | DocScrutinizer05 | particularly the "modem firmware MUST NOT be updateable" part |
| 16:09.43 | modem | well |
| 16:10.05 | modem | RMS thinks that a microwave has no clue to be free software if it just does one little "mechanistic-like" things |
| 16:10.13 | DocScrutinizer05 | if it was updateable then FSF would consider it as software rather than a blackbox, and thus cannot certify it. So they request it ust not be updateable for them to not break their own rules |
| 16:10.36 | modem | i understand that on the hardware level your baseband basically behave such as a microwave : it has no possibility to interact with anything |
| 16:10.49 | DocScrutinizer05 | exactly |
| 16:11.07 | modem | i can imagine that an update of the baseband migth provide ability to somehow broadcast voice/data to other frequency or such |
| 16:11.14 | modem | and that need to be avoided |
| 16:11.19 | DocScrutinizer05 | no |
| 16:11.27 | modem | but i don't think that's at all a possible scenario to consider |
| 16:11.37 | DocScrutinizer05 | please read the link I posted up there |
| 16:11.40 | modem | i readed it |
| 16:11.41 | dos1 | modem: well, you have no idea what's inside the firmware anyway, no matter if it's upgradable or not |
| 16:11.53 | dos1 | it might have a time bomb implemented |
| 16:12.28 | dos1 | therefore, making any assumptions based on upgradability is IMO flawed |
| 16:12.29 | DocScrutinizer05 | the reqzirement for "no firmware update" is merely caused by concept of what FSF is and does |
| 16:12.42 | DocScrutinizer05 | it's totally unrelated to any privacy concerns |
| 16:12.55 | dos1 | you need monitoring and isolation no matter if it's upgradable or not |
| 16:12.58 | jonwil | I dont know about the FSF as an organization but I know RMS is basically anti-mobile-phone as a personal view because (in his eyes) mobile phones are "tracking devices in your pocket" or something |
| 16:13.15 | dos1 | and when you have monitoring and isolation, upgradability isn't a threat for you |
| 16:13.20 | DocScrutinizer05 | jonwil: we will change that |
| 16:13.27 | modem | :) |
| 16:13.27 | DocScrutinizer05 | as far as we are able to |
| 16:13.52 | modem | DocScrutinizer05, FSF strongly militate for user privacy |
| 16:14.13 | dos1 | just like we do :) |
| 16:14.18 | modem | I think that's a win-win for everyone to get "certified" |
| 16:14.26 | modem | seriously |
| 16:14.37 | DocScrutinizer05 | the pager idea is something we cannot implement per default but we offer that you may retrofit the device with any pager circuitry that meets your local needs |
| 16:14.49 | modem | both of you should considers working this way |
| 16:15.21 | DocScrutinizer05 | modem: a last time, please read the whole page of posts http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=1396903&highlight=Stallman#post1396903 |
| 16:15.34 | DocScrutinizer05 | it's all explained to epic length there |
| 16:15.39 | dos1 | well, implementing every rule of Respects Your Freedom program is not possible for us, unfortunately |
| 16:16.00 | jonwil | In any case the Neo900 is the closest you will get to a truly free and open mobile device |
| 16:16.06 | dos1 | but maybe FSF can use some other means to endorse a project than RYF? |
| 16:16.07 | modem | jonwil, agree |
| 16:16.25 | DocScrutinizer05 | a) we CANNOT do what FSF asks for and B) we think it's not OK to do so, even when we could |
| 16:17.14 | jonwil | hmmm, question: Will the schematics for the Neo900 be public in the way they are for GTA04? |
| 16:17.15 | dos1 | yes, regarding RYF requirements, there is one major difference between our and FSF opinion - we believe than upgradable closed blob is better for user freedom than non-upgradable closed blob |
| 16:17.30 | DocScrutinizer05 | it's technically impossible to guarantee "not upgradeable" |
| 16:17.30 | dos1 | jonwil: AFAIK - even more open |
| 16:17.55 | jonwil | that is good to know |
| 16:18.08 | DocScrutinizer05 | thus FSF will *never* certify a phone |
| 16:18.09 | dos1 | jonwil: 100% at least the way GTA04 was |
| 16:18.28 | modem | DocScrutinizer05, dos1, i think the FSF should do the validation must it be based on an exception. I think the rules exist for one reason and those are satisfied and you also should insist on the benefit of the isolation stuff |
| 16:18.38 | modem | the whole problem is about the concept of acceptability of the isolation |
| 16:19.06 | dos1 | modem: :nod: |
| 16:19.11 | DocScrutinizer05 | no, the problem is that FSF wants to certify all SOFTware |
| 16:19.33 | modem | they want people to design free software not isolate non-free software but actually even replicant (FSF validated) does run with non-free software |
| 16:19.42 | mvaenskae | welp, that went on a bit longer than i anticipated, back :) |
| 16:19.47 | DocScrutinizer05 | and they came up with the trick to not consider firmware as software when it's not upgradeable |
| 16:20.08 | DocScrutinizer05 | alas such firmware doesn't exist. EVERY firmware is upgradeable SOMEHOW |
| 16:20.52 | jonwil | Plenty of cases where you have a microcontroler where the firmware only exists burned into the microcontroler as mask rom |
| 16:20.57 | jonwil | hence its not upgradable ever |
| 16:21.19 | DocScrutinizer05 | show me the mask rom that holds 8MByte |
| 16:21.49 | DocScrutinizer05 | show me the modem that uses such mask ROM |
| 16:23.04 | DocScrutinizer05 | actually the FSF says "must not be upgradeable" since otherwise they MUST certify the upgrade blob which is non-free. |
| 16:23.15 | DocScrutinizer05 | no other reason for that |
| 16:23.28 | DocScrutinizer05 | and we take pride in disagreing with FSF here |
| 16:24.13 | DocScrutinizer05 | we think our users WANT to upgrade their modem firmware, when there's a new closed blob offered by modem manufacturer |
| 16:24.37 | DocScrutinizer05 | we think our users at least want the *freedom* to decide if they want to upgrade or not |
| 16:24.52 | DocScrutinizer05 | so we offer MORE freedom than FSF allows |
| 16:24.56 | modem | well that's upgrading from blind to blind anyhow |
| 16:25.02 | wpwrak | ;-))) |
| 16:25.15 | DocScrutinizer05 | and we take pride in that |
| 16:25.28 | DocScrutinizer05 | and won't compromise in it to get a FSF cert |
| 16:25.38 | wpwrak | FrSF - Freer Software Foundation ;-) |
| 16:25.50 | DocScrutinizer05 | hehe |
| 16:25.55 | bencoh | libreSF ;) |
| 16:27.16 | dos1 | modem: you're right, but take the WiFi as another example, where reverse engineering the firmware is more feasible than with the modem |
| 16:27.52 | bencoh | more feasible, well ... that's just because you dont own a bts/bss ;) |
| 16:28.03 | MonkeyofDoom | yeah, disabling upgrades means users can't even load free software onto the chip if it gets developed |
| 16:28.12 | DocScrutinizer05 | afaik there's already a RE'ed FOSS version for the WLAN module we use |
| 16:28.17 | mvaenskae | DocScrutinizer05: the fsf is shooting themselves in the foot with "non-upgradeable firmware" as that implies that barebones hardware itself doesn't allow installing the software in the first place as that is the "first upgrade" |
| 16:28.19 | dos1 | modem: if we would follow FSF suggestions now to get it certified, the non-free firmware would be sealed into the chip forever (unless you really really want to tinker with it, cause as Doc said, every firmware is upgradable *somehow* ;)) |
| 16:28.37 | DocScrutinizer05 | mvaenskae: yes |
| 16:28.38 | dos1 | modem: so there would be no (easy) way to install the free version |
| 16:29.15 | dos1 | which is kinda against the idea of user freedom IMO |
| 16:30.03 | mvaenskae | also, how is a firmware that is upgradeable via proprietary means different from a burnt-in firmware that changes anyways in its state to how the chip uses it? (just to bring up a few extra points on that topic) |
| 16:30.12 | modem | the fact that your hardware is doing something free is the point number 1. You are built onto non-free stuff but because you found a solution to avoid any interference with that -- and because there is no such things as free baseband chips+stack actually |
| 16:30.19 | modem | that should come to the ear of the FSF |
| 16:31.32 | mvaenskae | ponders on suggesting adding network-tower capabilities to the neo900 to use it as a small mitm-attack device for mobile networks |
| 16:32.57 | DocScrutinizer05 | modem: did you read http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=1396903&highlight=Stallman#post1396903 ? |
| 16:33.28 | mvaenskae | wpwrak: you would get more followers with fbf (free beer foundation) |
| 16:33.36 | DocScrutinizer05 | modem: you're welcome to *again* contact them and ask why they didn't answer our mals |
| 16:33.48 | DocScrutinizer05 | mails, even |
| 16:34.25 | dos1 | mvaenskae: hardly possible for neo900, but you can do that with good old neo freerunner and its ti calypso modem (although illegally, of course) |
| 16:34.53 | wpwrak | mvaenskae: naw, not giving away my preciousss !!1! |
| 16:35.05 | mvaenskae | DocScrutinizer05: btw, you mentioned the modem is detachable from the cpu pcb; in what way "detachable"? :) |
| 16:35.13 | DocScrutinizer05 | modem: please fnally read that page of posts, to find my mails to Mr Stallman in there. We already did make sure it "come to the ear of the FSF" |
| 16:35.25 | DocScrutinizer05 | mvaenskae: sandwich |
| 16:35.27 | mvaenskae | dos1: that works with the gta04?! |
| 16:35.41 | DocScrutinizer05 | modem is on LOWER wile CPU is on UPPER board |
| 16:36.13 | mvaenskae | DocScrutinizer05: oh, so we are getting two boards? |
| 16:36.24 | DocScrutinizer05 | yes, sure |
| 16:36.35 | mvaenskae | oh, cool :) i thought it was just one |
| 16:36.43 | DocScrutinizer05 | it's already mentioned in feasibility study already |
| 16:36.43 | dos1 | mvaenskae: nope, gta02 |
| 16:37.02 | mvaenskae | dos1: now that doesn't ring a bell but thanks for mentioning that ;) |
| 16:37.13 | dos1 | mvaenskae: aka Openmoko Neo Freerunner |
| 16:37.14 | DocScrutinizer05 | Neo Freerunner |
| 16:37.19 | mvaenskae | DocScrutinizer05: my bad, i must have forgotten that then |
| 16:37.51 | dos1 | and the key for that is named OsmocomBB |
| 16:38.37 | DocScrutinizer05 | and based on the only GSM chipset I know of that actually isn't 'sealed' |
| 16:38.45 | DocScrutinizer05 | calypso |
| 16:39.00 | mvaenskae | that's an OSS-based chipset? |
| 16:39.18 | DocScrutinizer05 | which hardly can do GSM quadband and already fails at EDGE |
| 16:39.31 | mvaenskae | well, but gsm is slowly dying out :/ they are already talking about 5g coming to cities |
| 16:40.32 | dos1 | mvaenskae: that's a chipset that wasn't cryptographically locked, so eventually the free firmware arrived for it |
| 16:40.59 | dos1 | mvaenskae: however, it's not supposed to be used as a phone - it's rather research oriented project |
| 16:41.25 | dos1 | mvaenskae: because you can't legally operate such modem with osmocombb on public network anyway, as replacing the firmware voids the certification |
| 16:42.02 | mvaenskae | dos1: so it's like android and their certificates? :> |
| 16:42.07 | bencoh | that's "standards" for you |
| 16:42.09 | bencoh | no, its worse |
| 16:42.23 | bencoh | because you can be a "threat" for the gsm network |
| 16:42.33 | dos1 | mvaenskae: ? |
| 16:42.45 | dos1 | bencoh: yup. the security of GSM networks is laughable |
| 16:42.55 | bencoh | "laughable" is not enough |
| 16:42.56 | mvaenskae | bencoh: what threat? that stuff is less protected than wep! |
| 16:43.18 | bencoh | hmm actually a5 is a bit more tricky to break than wep |
| 16:43.21 | dos1 | the whole security concept of it *relies on* illegality to operate any non-licensed hardware on the network |
| 16:43.23 | bencoh | (needs more horsepower) |
| 16:43.47 | mvaenskae | dos1: android seems to have had certificate troubles in terms of apps pretending to be special system apps and then just getting the approriate permissions of said system app |
| 16:43.50 | DocScrutinizer05 | funny detail on calypso: back when stallman approved the GTA02 (for modem) since there been no *flasher* available. When I published the flasher and modem firmware updates, he probably had to revoke that approval |
| 16:44.10 | bencoh | haha |
| 16:44.15 | DocScrutinizer05 | then after osmocomBB he.... needs to approve again? |
| 16:44.19 | DocScrutinizer05 | X-P |
| 16:44.30 | jonwil | If you have the secret key for a particular SIM card, listening to all the traffic from that SIM (on GSM and UMTS anyway) is very much possible |
| 16:44.34 | dos1 | mvaenskae: yep, I know, but I don't see any similarity tbh |
| 16:44.35 | bencoh | that's crazy |
| 16:44.51 | mvaenskae | DocScrutinizer05: you are a mean individial and deserve a free beer on that! |
| 16:44.58 | DocScrutinizer05 | hehe |
| 16:45.06 | DocScrutinizer05 | thanks! ;-D |
| 16:45.24 | bencoh | yeah, let's drown doc in beer :p |
| 16:46.00 | dos1 | don't overdo, we still need him in the project :P |
| 16:46.03 | mvaenskae | jonwil: simcards usually run java code iirc |
| 16:46.12 | bencoh | oooh right, let's wait some |
| 16:46.47 | bencoh | mvaenskae: a subset of java bytecode only |
| 16:47.07 | jonwil | yeah I remember a video from defcon all about SIMs and Java and stuff |
| 16:47.08 | bencoh | I dont remember the name of that stuff, but its not "java" |
| 16:47.21 | bencoh | (well not the plain java that we all think about) |
| 16:47.23 | bencoh | (afaik) |
| 16:47.36 | jonwil | Biggest problem I have with GSM, UMTS etc is that they are far more complicated than they need to be (even given all the things they have to do like handing off to next tower, roaming to networks all over the world etc) |
| 16:47.50 | *** join/#neo900 b1101 (~b@108.61.76.10) |
| 16:47.50 | *** join/#neo900 b1101 (~b@fsf/member/b1101) |
| 16:48.09 | mvaenskae | jonwil: i first heard of that on the latest ccc on how they hacked sim cards; freaky |
| 16:48.29 | DocScrutinizer05 | SAT or STK |
| 16:48.42 | DocScrutinizer05 | SIM Application Toolkit |
| 16:48.55 | DocScrutinizer05 | SIM application ToolKit |
| 16:49.00 | mvaenskae | that's the "framework" on getting code to run on it? |
| 16:49.18 | DocScrutinizer05 | that's the Java running on SIM |
| 16:49.46 | mvaenskae | oh, nice |
| 16:49.55 | jonwil | I strongly suspect the reason cellular standards are so complex is because they are designed to rely on as many patents as possible so that those people in the industry with the big portfolios can extract money from everyone for licenses |
| 16:50.28 | DocScrutinizer05 | jonwil: you could have a point there |
| 16:50.31 | bencoh | and make sure no one will be able to read those in a lifetime |
| 16:50.34 | mvaenskae | good to know, i probably never will look really deeply into that stuff especially as i suspect voice-comms to die and just have global mobile internet |
| 16:50.42 | bencoh | unless he used to work in this industry |
| 16:51.29 | DocScrutinizer05 | I used to work in that industry but believe me, I didn't read all, actually I read almost nothing of this gibberish |
| 16:51.46 | mvaenskae | jonwil: that's a prettz big reason i suppose; i hate patents that hinder technological advancements -.- |
| 16:52.19 | DocScrutinizer05 | for UMTS there are definitely royalties to get paid |
| 16:52.27 | DocScrutinizer05 | per device sold |
| 16:52.36 | bencoh | best businessplan ever :° |
| 16:52.37 | dos1 | another reason why open baseband is hardly feasible |
| 16:53.08 | DocScrutinizer05 | best: it's percent of final device price |
| 16:53.20 | MonkeyofDoom | haha |
| 16:53.25 | bencoh | well actually royalties arent a real hinder for oss |
| 16:53.33 | MonkeyofDoom | if you build a smart house that speaks UMTS they get an n% cut? :D |
| 16:53.35 | bencoh | see mpeg2 consortium and x264 for instance |
| 16:53.53 | DocScrutinizer05 | which was a reason for Openmoko/me toplan pluggable modem module in GTA04-the-first |
| 16:54.32 | dos1 | bencoh: but implementing some library and selling a device are two completely different matters... :( |
| 16:54.33 | jonwil | Even if voice disappears and everything becomes data (or if voice becomes just another application on top of that data) whats left will still be far more complex than it should be. |
| 16:54.38 | DocScrutinizer05 | bencoh: true |
| 16:55.09 | dos1 | >(or if voice becomes just another application on top of that data) |
| 16:55.20 | dos1 | FYI: voice in LTE is basically a voip |
| 16:55.27 | DocScrutinizer05 | yes |
| 16:55.27 | jonwil | yeah I know |
| 16:55.48 | jonwil | but carriers mostly haven't deployed VoLTE yet |
| 16:55.52 | jonwil | at least last time I looked |
| 16:56.06 | DocScrutinizer05 | yup |
| 16:56.20 | dos1 | yep, but probably at some point they will |
| 16:56.22 | bencoh | dos1: yup |
| 16:56.24 | DocScrutinizer05 | still doing fallback to 3G |
| 16:56.47 | DocScrutinizer05 | our modem is prepared for VoLTE |
| 16:57.02 | DocScrutinizer05 | :-) |
| 16:57.05 | bencoh | but will it work ? :p |
| 16:57.21 | DocScrutinizer05 | yes, after the third upgrade of firmware ;-P |
| 16:57.38 | bencoh | :° |
| 16:57.53 | DocScrutinizer05 | unless we get a RYF cert |
| 16:57.59 | dos1 | imagine the code needed to make proper roaming from volte to older networks possible... ;) |
| 16:58.12 | DocScrutinizer05 | *ciugh* |
| 16:58.21 | jonwil | which sim card standard will the Neo900 support? Normal? Micro? Nano? |
| 16:58.40 | DocScrutinizer05 | standard |
| 16:58.48 | jonwil | ok, makes sense |
| 16:59.05 | jonwil | still the most popular, its what N900 users will have |
| 16:59.29 | DocScrutinizer05 | however we might get a second SIM slot and I can't promise that will be standard too. Might be microSIM |
| 17:00.58 | DocScrutinizer05 | alas our modem will not support DSDS true dualSIM |
| 17:01.03 | DocScrutinizer05 | as of now |
| 17:01.06 | bencoh | sad |
| 17:01.13 | DocScrutinizer05 | yeah |
| 17:01.17 | DocScrutinizer05 | :-/ |
| 17:01.18 | bencoh | well manual switch is still cool |
| 17:01.23 | bencoh | no need to power down |
| 17:01.23 | DocScrutinizer05 | :nod: |
| 17:02.00 | DocScrutinizer05 | and who knows... At least I already propagated the idea to Gemalto |
| 17:02.13 | DocScrutinizer05 | maybe with a firmware update... ;-) |
| 17:02.35 | bencoh | the fact that we're getting our modem from gemalto puzzles me |
| 17:02.39 | bencoh | frightens me a bit too :) |
| 17:02.43 | DocScrutinizer05 | why? |
| 17:02.55 | bencoh | because of what they work one :) |
| 17:03.08 | DocScrutinizer05 | sorry? |
| 17:03.33 | DocScrutinizer05 | can't parse that |
| 17:03.46 | bencoh | work on |
| 17:03.48 | bencoh | * |
| 17:03.53 | DocScrutinizer05 | ooh |
| 17:03.54 | mvaenskae | bencoh: it's not the GEMA, gemalto != gema ;) |
| 17:04.11 | DocScrutinizer05 | well, what is it that they work on that puzzles/frigthens you? |
| 17:04.19 | bencoh | I'm talking about gemalto, the french company |
| 17:04.35 | DocScrutinizer05 | I'm not sure they are french |
| 17:04.54 | DocScrutinizer05 | our Gemalto sits... next to GDC ;-D |
| 17:04.59 | bencoh | I think they are ... or at least they used to be |
| 17:05.19 | DocScrutinizer05 | formerly known as Cinterion formerly known as Siemens |
| 17:05.25 | dos1 | hq of gemalto is in netherlands |
| 17:05.26 | bencoh | ;) |
| 17:05.39 | bencoh | gemalto/oberthur are two "monsters" in the smartcard/security business |
| 17:05.50 | dos1 | and the modem is actually from cinterion, which has been bought by gemalto |
| 17:05.59 | DocScrutinizer05 | hmm, whatever. Those are stll german Siemens guys |
| 17:06.15 | DocScrutinizer05 | :-D |
| 17:06.54 | bencoh | see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemalto |
| 17:07.01 | DocScrutinizer05 | and I must say, for Siemens docs the manuals are pretty readable |
| 17:07.06 | bencoh | I dont know about the modem branch |
| 17:07.22 | bencoh | but the smartcard branch is definitely french |
| 17:07.29 | DocScrutinizer05 | possible |
| 17:07.43 | bencoh | (and gemalto is in the cac40 ;) |
| 17:20.49 | *** join/#neo900 MonkeyofDoom (~~Monkeyof@71-14-188-191.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com) |
| 17:30.10 | *** part/#neo900 SAiF (~SAiF@117.196.145.90) |
| 17:54.16 | *** join/#neo900 x29a (~x29a@unaffiliated/x29a) |
| 18:20.05 | *** join/#neo900 vakkov (~vakko@217.174.52.246) |
| 19:18.51 | *** join/#neo900 norly (~norly@enpas.org) |
| 19:59.22 | *** join/#neo900 norly (~norly@enpas.org) |
| 20:39.05 | *** join/#neo900 ds2 (noinf@rehut.com) |
| 21:42.45 | *** join/#neo900 b1101 (~b@209.222.18.59) |
| 21:42.47 | *** join/#neo900 b1101 (~b@fsf/member/b1101) |
| 21:47.08 | *** join/#neo900 Kabouik (~quassel@110.109.138.88.rev.sfr.net) |
| 23:01.15 | *** join/#neo900 lexik (lexik@nat.brmlab.cz) |
| 23:57.44 | dos1 | http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1422969 |
| 23:58.13 | dos1 | android app for imsi catcher detection |
| 23:58.43 | dos1 | a bit naive approach, but with interesting ideas in roadmap |