4 ms·

I really hope some of such images are providing some user-friendly in field WiFi setup just like any smart home devices.

by ex3ndr 6y ago

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
Can't speak for Raspian, but Armbian has https://docs.armbian.com/User-Guide_Armbian-Config/#network https://docs.armbian.com/User-Guide_Armbian-Config/#network Simple enough?
- dividuum 6y ago
  I think that's not what op meant: If I understand your link correctly, that's a tool to help connect to various networks if you have a shell on the device. If you don't, that won't help. What you need in that case is that the device itself opens up a temporary access point that you can use to configure the device.
- ex3ndr 6y ago
  99% of time i want to be able to connect device anywhere. For example, give it to customer, friend, family to check out. It is to much hustle to hardcode this to a device while i literally just want to be able to configure this on first run.
hibbelig 6y ago
The article says you enter the credentials and then the site generates an image that can connect to that WiFi.
- draugadrotten 6y ago
  So these guys will have IP addresses, wifi network credentials and root passwords for all devices using their services. The site will provide you with a root password for your embedded device, and you will provide the site with the wifi network and credentials needed to access the network where the device is. That doesn't sound like good security practice.
  - asveikau 6y ago
    So... What is with this trend of making a web service out of something that ought to be a shell script? Reminds me of yesterday's hn post about making your PDFs look scanned by... Uploading to a web server that runs a ghostscript command. It's almost as if locally running software is deeply confusing to people and the perception is that you need to have a potentially privacy violating service if you have a friendly ui. Not to mention all the energy wasted running those servers. Is this how bad our society has gotten at writing software?
    - mappu 6y ago
      In 2020, most people's only device is a cellphone. They can't easily run ghostscript directly, and making a web service is easier than making an app (recompiling ghostscript for all CPU architectures, ...) despite the ongoing hosting costs.
      - asveikau 6y ago
        Not just hosting costs. Energy costs. Destruction to our planet. That is also in addition to sending your documents to who knows who. You can probably compile ghostscript to javascript via emscripten or similar. I am not sure what this means for its AGPL license. But maybe this is more a discussion for that other thread.
        yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
        > You can probably compile ghostscript to javascript via emscripten or similar. I am not sure what this means for its AGPL license. Shouldn't be any "worse" than running it server-side, since AGPL exists in order to apply to SaaS.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
        I feel like the right answer to that is to make ghostscript run on a cell phone. I mean... we're already on Darwin or Linux; the userland is weird, but ex. Termux and iSH proves that you absolutely can run a lot of packages all the same. So in my mind, the real question is: Why does the porting and app development experience suck so much? I mean... HyperCard, in 1987, was usable by non-programmers. A/UX had Commando in 1995, which wrapped CLI in a nice GUI. To hear people rant, the height of RAD GUI building was Visual Basic 5 (1997) or VB6 (1998). Have we really lost that much in the ensuing 25 years?

I really hope some of such images are providing some user-friendly in field WiFi setup just like any smart home devices.

by ex3ndr 6y ago

I really hope some of such images are providing some user-friendly in field WiFi setup just like any smart home devices.

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

Can't speak for Raspian, but Armbian has https://docs.armbian.com/User-Guide_Armbian-Config/#network https://docs.armbian.com/User-Guide_Armbian-Config/#network Simple enough?

dividuum 6y ago
I think that's not what op meant: If I understand your link correctly, that's a tool to help connect to various networks if you have a shell on the device. If you don't, that won't help. What you need in that case is that the device itself opens up a temporary access point that you can use to configure the device.
ex3ndr 6y ago
99% of time i want to be able to connect device anywhere. For example, give it to customer, friend, family to check out. It is to much hustle to hardcode this to a device while i literally just want to be able to configure this on first run.

hibbelig 6y ago

The article says you enter the credentials and then the site generates an image that can connect to that WiFi.

draugadrotten 6y ago
So these guys will have IP addresses, wifi network credentials and root passwords for all devices using their services. The site will provide you with a root password for your embedded device, and you will provide the site with the wifi network and credentials needed to access the network where the device is. That doesn't sound like good security practice.
- asveikau 6y ago
  So... What is with this trend of making a web service out of something that ought to be a shell script? Reminds me of yesterday's hn post about making your PDFs look scanned by... Uploading to a web server that runs a ghostscript command. It's almost as if locally running software is deeply confusing to people and the perception is that you need to have a potentially privacy violating service if you have a friendly ui. Not to mention all the energy wasted running those servers. Is this how bad our society has gotten at writing software?
  - mappu 6y ago
    In 2020, most people's only device is a cellphone. They can't easily run ghostscript directly, and making a web service is easier than making an app (recompiling ghostscript for all CPU architectures, ...) despite the ongoing hosting costs.
    - asveikau 6y ago
      Not just hosting costs. Energy costs. Destruction to our planet. That is also in addition to sending your documents to who knows who. You can probably compile ghostscript to javascript via emscripten or similar. I am not sure what this means for its AGPL license. But maybe this is more a discussion for that other thread.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
        > You can probably compile ghostscript to javascript via emscripten or similar. I am not sure what this means for its AGPL license. Shouldn't be any "worse" than running it server-side, since AGPL exists in order to apply to SaaS.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      I feel like the right answer to that is to make ghostscript run on a cell phone. I mean... we're already on Darwin or Linux; the userland is weird, but ex. Termux and iSH proves that you absolutely can run a lot of packages all the same. So in my mind, the real question is: Why does the porting and app development experience suck so much? I mean... HyperCard, in 1987, was usable by non-programmers. A/UX had Commando in 1995, which wrapped CLI in a nice GUI. To hear people rant, the height of RAD GUI building was Visual Basic 5 (1997) or VB6 (1998). Have we really lost that much in the ensuing 25 years?