2010/5/28 Rob Myers <[email protected]>

> On 05/28/2010 05:11 PM, Ted Smith wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 11:51 -0400, Matt Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Due to maturity of the codebase, myself and the other contributors have
>>> decided to build GNU social alongside StatusNet, and additionally, we
>>> recommend OStatus as the basis for the distributed social networking
>>> protocol we intend to champion.
>>>
>>
>> I thought this had been discussed (and rejected) in the past - as far
>> back as the autonomo.us mailing list. What's changed since then in terms
>> of the StatusNet protocol serving as the basis for the GNU Social
>> protocol?
>>
>
> No other protocol has the same mixture of maturity (as you point out),
> large existing deployment base, and FSF-assigned code.


RDF?  Over a decade of collaboration, specs, libraries, tools etc.
Deployment across Government (US+UK), Facebook, IMDB, Google, Yahoo,
MySpace, NASA etc. etc.  Bullet proof royalty free licensing, rather than
patent, non attribution.

For the record, I'm not opposed to the OStatus choice, but I do feel it
slightly inaccurate to say there was nothing else comparable out there.


>
>
>  What of all the other discussion on this list regarding other protocols?
>>
>
> They have been very useful and can help to improve OStatus and any Social
> additions to it.
>
>
>  Personally, it is still my opinion that a higher-level protocol,
>> speaking in terms of abstract concepts, and implemented over several
>> other protocols, including OStatus and everything else, as transports,
>> would be best for this GNU World we're building, and I don't understand
>> why OStatus alone is being singled out now. The StatusNet codebase has
>> been mature as long as this project has been alive.
>>
>
> OStatus is being singled out now because it has become possible to do so
> and because it has momentum from the great work StatusNet have done.
>
> We have something concrete to work with, build on, and evaluate.
>
> And if people want something more abstract, we have something to abstract
> from.
>
> - Rob.
>
>

Reply via email to