[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Freedombox-discuss] Addressing

2010/9/2 Jon Spriggs <jon at sprig.gs>

> 2010/9/2 Bjarni R?nar Einarsson <bre at beanstalks-project.net>:
> > Although I think it would be great if Freedom Boxes came preconfigured
> and
> > able to use Tor, I do think that if whatever gets built ends up being
> > incompatible with normal web browsers and e-mail clients, then it will
> never
> > get any traction and will never achieve its goals.  If I can only connect
> > and communicate with other Freedom Box users, then there is no reason to
> buy
> > such a box in the first place. Chicken and egg.  We have to be "backwards
> > compatible" with the "normal Internet".
> Personally, I think that for the most part, I'd expect, from home, to
> be accessing the front end without it connecting over TOR and only be
> using TOR when I'm outside of home - essentially, only using it from
> untrusted locations - essentially what I'd use TOR Hidden Services for
> on the whole.

Sure, if you are the only person who ever accesses your server, that's
perfectly reasonable.

I however have this desire to run my own web-server, my blog, my home-page,
my photo-album - all on a Freedom Box (or just my Linux server, since I know
how to set one up), where all the data is under my control, in my house.  I
also might want to run my own SMTP server, so mail can be delivered directly
to me... I want my box to be reachable using traditional protocols from the
rest of the world, so I can share stuff with my friends and family who
haven't discovered TOR yet and haven't got Freedom Boxes of their own.

So that's what I'm working on.

We are probably just thinking about completely separate use-cases, and I
suspect both are perfectly valid. :-)

Bjarni R. Einarsson

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20100902/5c7e98f3/attachment.htm>

Reply to: