Blaine Cook typeth: | > actually optimized to do this job. There is a reason why chatrooms | > are usually not implemented by HTTP POST orgies. | | Actually, increasingly they are.
I've done my share of webchats myself, I used to run some of the largest web chats in Germany ten years ago (although ten thousands of people sounds harmless today), but using HTTP for that only makes sense if the web browser is the chat client - not for interserver exchange and distribution. Alright, it can be done. What for? Just because you don't have to implement a routing layer, or use an existing one? Having slow web servers in the mix of the whole system is a good idea? | It's appalling, it's horrendous, but developers love the HTTP, and | most importantly, it's massively successful. So the wisdom I've gained The number of fail whales that I the not power user have seen makes me wonder if a real backbone could have been even more successful. | And isn't that the most important thing here? Do we want a highly | tuned race-car of a P2P decentralized network that has no users, that | concedes to Twitter and Facebook the bulk of users and their freedom? I don't see people flocking to see a brand new Facebook lookalike, but I can imagine people installing the blazing native social network client that lets you do the things we used to do on Facebook in a much more breathtaking and empowering way. And with all the headline news on data breaches over the last years, they might actually appreciate to hear, that such a desktop based social network application doesn't just do nifty things such as sharing files with your friends - it also keeps that data truly private. Something a server just doesn't do. | Or do we want a successful technology that empowers more people and | promotes and extends freedom to them? Yes, only it's not the one you mean. | You're welcome to create something entirely new, but I'd suggest you | start by mocking up some designs as to how your P2P network is meant No thanks. Each one of us here has already some prototype or product working. Just look at http://groups.fsf.org/wiki/Group:GNU_Social/Ideas there is a broad choice of projects for each design approach to doing this. Yes the web-based quickhacks lead the pack. | to work /for users/, and not just geeks. The same applies to the Users are still choosing Skype over web-based telephony. Why that? Don't underestimate the power of a sleek desktop utility.. How many Twitter users use desktop clients? How much do they enjoy Twitter more than the regular users? | usability of the underlying technology as far as your target | technological audience is concerned (in this case, your audience is | almost certainly web developers - c.f., GNU Social targeting PHP). The | technology is important, but the usability and desirability of the end | result is far more so. Ignore this at your peril. I see quite some potential with the backend of GNUnet, the experience in protocol design of PSYC/XMPP and several other nifty things that have been thrown into the pool on this mailing list recently. Working out the real thing looks very feasible in my eyes. -- ___ psyc://psyced.org/~lynX ___ irc://psyced.org/welcome ___ ___ xmpp:[email protected] ____ https://psyced.org/PSYC/ _____
