I think the intention is that these will just be some base instances of
GNU Social to provide a foundation of servers to work with, not the
entire social network per se (in the same way that identi.ca isn't the
only StatusNet server). We wouldn't require people to use names from
this list.. We still expect (and encourage) people to install their own
instances of GNU Social once the alpha/subsequent versions are released.
--sean
Natanael wrote:
Would that be for the "official servers", or for what?
I think that the user shouldn't have to pick a server among those
within an organisation, so you would pick who should provide you the
services rather then a server (such as picking Gnu, not
foobar10.gnu.org <http://foobar10.gnu.org>).
I'm not sure if this list of server names would be useful. I don't
think that a lot of the server owners would use this name list.
Den 18 jun 2010 17.02, "Steven DuBois" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> skrev:
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 14:38 +0200, Loiseau lucien wrote:
> I don't get the point, if peoples install...
We're compiling a list of names that may be used as titles for seperate
GNU social servers. So rather than telling people to use one centralized
server, they can choose between hundreds of independently run servers.
--
Steven DuBois <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Free Software Foundation - Intern
