Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Another reason for the Box

2011-08-02 Thread Tony Farese
Yes, yes, great info. As many of you may know, yesterday, Congress passed a "deal" on debt ceiling. What has not been widely reported on is the "Super Congress" also created by the bill which will have authority to address ALL sensitive issues and legislate at the whim of the President and 12 hand

[Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox Webserver

2011-08-02 Thread Melvin Carvalho
I think it's well established by now that freedombox will run a web server. I'm keen to start getting things up and running, even if it's only something as small as a web presence running under debian, maybe with an FB badge. Do we have a preference, apache or nginx or user choice? Bear in mind

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox Webserver

2011-08-02 Thread Bob Mottram
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:40:39 +0200, Melvin Carvalho wrote: I think it's well established by now that freedombox will run a web server. I'm keen to start getting things up and running, even if it's only something as small as a web presence running under debian, maybe with an FB badge. Do we have

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox Webserver

2011-08-02 Thread Ted Smith
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 18:40 +0200, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > I think it's well established by now that freedombox will run a web server. > > I'm keen to start getting things up and running, even if it's only > something as small as a web presence running under debian, maybe with > an FB badge. > >

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox Webserver

2011-08-02 Thread Melvin Carvalho
On 2 August 2011 18:51, Ted Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 18:40 +0200, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> I think it's well established by now that freedombox will run a web server. >> >> I'm keen to start getting things up and running, even if it's only >> something as small as a web presence runni

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox Webserver

2011-08-02 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On 11-08-02 at 06:40pm, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > I think it's well established by now that freedombox will run a web > server. Personally I still keep it open to have a FreedomBox design without a web UI. But I might be quite alone applying such odd principle. > Tempting just to say apache2 a

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox Webserver

2011-08-02 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:40:39PM +0200, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > I think it's well established by now that freedombox will run a web server. > > I'm keen to start getting things up and running, even if it's only > something as small as a web presence running under debian, maybe with > an FB badg

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Animated Freedombox logos

2011-08-02 Thread Joshua Spodek
A couple people wrote with suggestions and improvements to the logo I posted about before. First, thank you! I love the suggestions, but I also should have mentioned my limitations in editing the file now. This one came to be because I happened to catch Nina when she was free for a few hours. I d

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox Webserver

2011-08-02 Thread Ted Smith
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 20:01 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 11-08-02 at 06:40pm, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > I think it's well established by now that freedombox will run a web > > server. > > Personally I still keep it open to have a FreedomBox design without a > web UI. But I might be quit

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox Webserver

2011-08-02 Thread Lee Fisher
Do we have a preference, apache or nginx or user choice? Bear in mind every option you allow will require support and increase time to market. Of the two, isn't Apache httpd the only one that supports WebID (currently)? I don't know of any WebID support in nginx. __

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox Webserver

2011-08-02 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On 11-08-02 at 03:34pm, Ted Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 20:01 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Initially I will use apache2-mpm-worker due to failure in getting > > nginx or lighttpd to sensibly support content-negotiating - which is > > needed by jwchat which I've thrown in as a crude

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox Webserver

2011-08-02 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On 11-08-02 at 11:02am, Lee Fisher wrote: > > >>>Do we have a preference, apache or nginx or user choice? Bear in > >>>mind every option you allow will require support and increase time > >>>to market. > > Of the two, isn't Apache httpd the only one that supports WebID > (currently)? I don't

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox Webserver

2011-08-02 Thread Melvin Carvalho
On 2 August 2011 22:29, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 11-08-02 at 11:02am, Lee Fisher wrote: >> >> >>>Do we have a preference, apache or nginx or user choice?  Bear in >> >>>mind every option you allow will require support and increase time >> >>>to market. >> >> Of the two, isn't Apache httpd the

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox Webserver

2011-08-02 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On 11-08-02 at 10:53pm, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > On 2 August 2011 22:29, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On 11-08-02 at 11:02am, Lee Fisher wrote: > >> > >> >>>Do we have a preference, apache or nginx or user choice?  Bear > >> >>>in mind every option you allow will require support and increase > >>

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Simple way to help out here and now very concretely

2011-08-02 Thread Melvin Carvalho
On 26 July 2011 11:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 11-07-25 at 09:01pm, Craig Barnes wrote: >> On 24 July 2011 23:54, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> >> > On 11-07-24 at 11:11pm, Craig Barnes wrote: >> > > Would love to start playing with various packages, but am not sure >> > > if I am wasting my ti

Re: [Freedombox-discuss] DNS std for Freedomboxes? [was Re: Establishing Communicationbetween Freedomboxes]

2011-08-02 Thread Sandy Harris
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Tony Godshall wrote: > Any downside to letting your adversary know what domains you are > emailing to?  Well, the mice probably don't want the octopus know that > they are emailing via @octopusnotsogreat.org?  But then again SMTP > itself is not encrypted either..