Here's what I have seen so far in the discussion of adjectives
describing the robust, reliable, privacy-enabling network under
construction:
- Distributed network: The most popular term. It seems to come from
group think rather than collective intelligence.
- Decentralized network: Perhaps accurate, but definitely too much like
jargon (I see that now!). Also, as Dan O. pointed out, the negation
prefix (de-) inhibits understanding - agreed.
- Federated network: Like centralized, this term implies that the
*network* has a common goal. In reality the network *is* the common goal.
-Confederated network: This is a good term lexicographically, but it
invokes some ill feelings in many U.S. Americans. Old wounds die hard
(or something...).
- K'e network: K'e is the Navajo word for family. An option that doesn't
use Euro-centric language.
- Shared network: This one seems to get to the heart of the intent. By
connecting our independent resources we will be able to use (and
supplement) the current, well maintained infrastructure of the Internet
while maintaining privacy and control of our intellectual property. The
network is simply a set of computers connected by links. Its not really
a thing itself - it's more of a concept - like a graph. But, calling it
"shared" reifies (makes real) the thing. Also, "shared" evokes a notion
of the commons (a la Stallman, Moglen, and Lessig), is easy to
understand, and translates well into other languages.
The comic would still hit the point right on if "shared" substituted for
"distributed."
Cheers,
Jake
_______________________________________________
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
