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

[Freedombox-discuss] [linux-elitists] my summary of yesterday's Hackfest

Hi Tony,

Sorry for not answering earlier, your email got snowed under.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Tony Godshall <togo at of.net> wrote:

> Saw your post on linux-elitists.  I am interested in your project and

have signed up for the mailing list.

I don't know linux-elitists, but great to see you here!
Since you're here now, I'll reply on the list, I hope that's OK.

>  A couple of questions and comments:


1: Social



> I studied the facebook api a bit more to see if we can scrape it. For now,
> [...]

Perhaps adapting the API such that "registering" is done with public key
 encryption, such that an app could get some security against eavesdropping

 and spoofing?   Obviously a freedombox should not require some authority

 to authorize the app, but that doesn't mean there cannot be a useful
> meaning

 to the concept of registration.

Do you mean adapting the facebook api? that would be the easiest way for
sure, yes! :) i'm afraid we'll have to try to invent something that works
with their exisitng api. Maybe I misunderstood what you mean there.

> > 2: Backup
> > =======
> > I someone saw something about this, but iirc that was on the mailing list
> > and not at the hackfest.
> Bup is very interesting.  It is git, but adapted to binaries better and
> handle
> much bigger files.   Not an expert yet, but it's looking good and fast.
>  And
> it is very programmable.  And it looks good as an infrastructure for apt
> and p2p
> distribution/replication as well.
cool! i'll look into it, do you have a link?

> > 3: Network Neutrality
> > ===============
> > Again, interesting discussions about this more on the mailing list than
> at
> > the hackfest. Just remember we're right now trying to shortlist existing
> > debian packages.
> What an odd comment.  I'll watch for context- maybe it will become clear.
yeah, sorry, i was very tired when i wrote that email. :) what i meant to
say was that we're discussing lots of new technologies, that are not in
debian yet. while that is useful, we shouldn't lose focus on trying to build
something that will run debian, within 6 months.

> > 4: Anonymous publishing
> > ==================
> > I looked into the "main four" again (tor, i2p, freenet, gnunet) and came
> to
> > the same conclusion as last week, that Tor seems to be a lot more light
> > weight and also more mature than the other 3, and thus looks like the
> best
> > option. It is an existing debian package.
> There are actually two very different animals in the above.
> One is obfuscated *networking*, and the two candidates for that would
> be tor and i2p.  The only persistency these programs offer is a record
> of which servers have been reliable.
> Another is obfuscated *storage*, and the two candidates for that would
> be freenet and gnunet.
> Treating them all in one pool and picking the best of four as if they
> perform the same function is a mistake.

thank you, i didn't have that clear in my head. now i do, thanks. so do you
think we should add one of {freenet, gnunet}?

> > 5: Firewalling
> > ==========
> >
> > We again got stuck at the issue that this one is a bit vague. If you use
> > on your router, it's already quite safe from attacks, and other virus
> > scanning and such can be done on the windows computer.
> Heh.  By the time the virus gets to a windows computer it is already
> infected.
> But anyway, a mechanism for NAT makes sense, as does a mechanism to
> port-forward[1] and port-block[2].  No reason you should have to have
> a separate router- a linux box makes a great router with just 3-4
> lines of iptables commands.

yes, the freedombox should be capable of replacing your router. but it
should also be capable of running in combination with an ISP-supplied
router, because some ISP oblige you to use theirs.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110303/6d4b162c/attachment.htm>

Reply to: