On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 23:27 +0100, Rob Myers wrote: > On 05/28/2010 10:14 PM, Ted Smith wrote: > > Personally, I don't like this choice. It forces the implementation > > paradigm in the direction of "web servers", which is a step backwards > > for user freedom. If it were possible to implement OStatus in a p2p > > network, I would be less negative, but as I've been reading over the > > spec it seems that that's impossible. Someone more familiar with OStatus > > should definitely correct me if I'm wrong - I would love to be wrong > > here. > > A web server can be implemented in any number of ways in any number of > environments. It is a limit, yes, but Eben Moglen's talk about cloud > freedom describes ways of offsetting that limit. > > OStatus and StatusNet fit the original federated server idea, and were > the example that I personally had in mind for that.
Originally, I had the same idea, but over time I became convinced that only locally-running code could really provide adequate privacy and freedom. > > StatusNet supports XMPP and other protocols iirc. It's good software > written by smart people with their eyes very definitely on user freedom. I'm not trying to attack the StatusNet folks - they've probably done more for user autonomy on the social web than nearly everyone. But to me, embracing a protocol that's specifically designed around GLAMP apps, versus a high-level protocol that can be implemented on GLAMP apps, is a loss. Also, does StatusNet support XMPP as a server-to-server transport, or just as a UI transport (a way for the user to get stuff to the server)? It was my impression it was just a UI transport. > >> 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. > > > > What do you mean by "it has become possible to do so?" > > I mean that as a result of the copyright assignment GNU now has high > quality existing OStatus code available to build on. > Assignment was a recent development. This is an opportunity that has > been taken, not a plot that has taken time to come to fruition. > This makes things a lot more clear. I had gotten a different impression from Matt Lee on IRC - though that's my fault, not his. > If you have any other questions for me personally about what I do or do > not know I'll answer them unless they involve betraying a confidence (in > which case I will state that, although I don't think it applies to > anything I know about Social or StatusNet). Nothing further. :-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
