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

[Freedombox-discuss] co-existence with the havenots (was: Introductions)

Thanks for your response,

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Matthew Johnson <mjj29 at debian.org> wrote:

> On Tue Sep 07 13:04, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> > Small websites can be seen as just havenot-bloggers that just need to
> > purchase their FreedomBoxes one-by-one. And probably even, say, the
> website
> > of a newspaper can at some point decide to set up their presence in the
> free
> > world.
> Don't forget the "I don't have a freedombox because I run my own server"
> crowd.
> They have all the freedom they need (the server logs are their own), but
> they
> are using the normal infrastructure.
True! Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

So then, rephrasing, a 'have' is any internet user that hosts her own data
on her own server (whether they run the FreedomBox blend or not). Some of us
already have this, so then FreedomBox would play a role in making
this easier and also cheaper for a wider public of non-expert users.

Also, people that have their own server now, probably use it for webhosting
and probably email and some other things, but i reckon there are few people
who don't use at least google search, and probably also some other things
like facebook, through the 'platform' sites right now. So they are only free
with respect to *some* of their internet usage, and would still have
something to win from (packages popularised by) the FreedomBox, insofar it
brings together the best of .

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20100907/d0d9b09e/attachment.htm>

Reply to: