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

[Freedombox-discuss] P2P Wave systems



Excuse me for such an intrusion
I'v seen a Tahoe-LAFS discussion and assumed
since you are discussing p2p variants for FreedomBox'es
maybe - here would be a specialists that could help us in

http://primarypad.com/OeMj2ZnZqo
discussion

part of our (XCCC) members are, currently, aiming into FreedomBox
as "all-in-one" tools for social communications and Open Augmented
Reality components.
so we need an specialists advice on p2p persistence,
gadgets, robots and other Wave goods if you know what i'm talking
about, there was a discussion on Apache Wave list, recently, that
leaded to informal agreement on that p2p or other distributive
variants is a vital components for further development of next-gen
Wave-OT-XMPP and OpenAR systems, and by that - specialists help and
consultation is highly needed.
All systems on Call's list (link) are all for FLOSS so, please, help us)

Thanks in advance.

  PS: can MPL2beta2 (https://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/beta/)
license be considered as non-freedom license for FreedomBox and by
that - lead to ignorance?

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:58 PM,
<freedombox-discuss-request at lists.alioth.debian.org> wrote:
> Send Freedombox-discuss mailing list submissions to
> ? ? ? ?freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> ? ? ? ?http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ? ? ? ?freedombox-discuss-request at lists.alioth.debian.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ? ? ? ?freedombox-discuss-owner at lists.alioth.debian.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Freedombox-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> ? 1. Re: tahoe-lafs now in debian (Jonas Smedegaard)
> ? 2. Re: tahoe-lafs now in debian (Adam Novak)
> ? 3. Re: tahoe-lafs now in debian (Jonas Smedegaard)
> ? 4. Re: tahoe-lafs now in debian (Heddle Weaver)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:31:40 +0200
> From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>
> To: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] tahoe-lafs now in debian
> Message-ID: <20110619123140.GC16465 at jones.dk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On 11-06-18 at 06:30pm, Luka Mar?eti? wrote:
>> On 06/17/2011 09:27 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> >On 11-06-17 at 09:13pm, Luka Mar?eti? wrote:
>> >>On 06/17/2011 07:24 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> >>>On 11-06-17 at 05:04pm, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> >>>>On 11-06-17 at 04:40pm, bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
>> >>>>>With the freedombox in mind, I've packaged tahoe-lafs and it's
>> >>>>>dependencies in Debian with the help of a proper DD. It has been
>> >>>>>accepted in unstable some hours ago, and it should pop up in the
>> >>>>>archive soon.
>> >>>>Cool!
>> >>>Now available unofficially for Debian stable using this APT line:
>> >>>
>> >>> ? deb http://debian.jones.dk/ squeeze freedombox
>> >>OT: Dirty hacks are dirty. We need desktop Debian (sid, not
>> >>testing).
>> >Uhm, what do you mean by that?
>> >
>> >Tahoe-lafs being dirty? ?My backporting effort being dirty?
>> >FreedomBox being dirty and desktops not so?!?
>> Back-porting being dirty, yes.
>
> Thanks for clarifying.
>
>
>> There should be no need. Are you suggesting Freedombox will be using
>> backports?
>
> No. ?The backport is offered as an aid for potential FreedomBox
> developers interested in unofficially(!) experiement with Tahoe-LAFS on
> an otherwise stable system.
>
> The debian.jones.dk repository is deliberately *not* signed to emphasize
> that using backports is dirty and risky.
>
> (as a related note, I consider backports.debian.org as dirty too, and
> find it problematic that Debian has no easy mechanism to flag if an
> install is dirty - independent on whether _delivery_ of it is safe).
>
>
> In my opinion FreedomBox should be a Debian Pure Blend, which implies
> that it uses only Debian, is only configured by Debian, and is
> distributed by Debian.
>
> I disagree with your possible suggestion that FreedomBox as shipped to
> our end-users should use Debian unstable. ?I feel that only a FreedomBox
> installed from Debian stable (and *only Debian stable, no addons of any
> kind) should be considered a stable FreedomBox installation.
>
> Yes, that means I expect FreedomBox to take years to mature. ?Until then
> we can make various experimental, unstable and testing installs - and
> dirty unofficial mixtures like installs "infected" with material from
> the debian.jones.dk repository.
>
>
> ?- Jonas
>
> --
> ?* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
> ?* Tlf.: +45 40843136 ?Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
> ?[x] quote me freely ?[ ] ask before reusing ?[ ] keep private
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 836 bytes
> Desc: Digital signature
> URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110619/abb91b34/attachment-0001.pgp>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:09:12 -0500
> From: Adam Novak <interfect at gmail.com>
> To: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] tahoe-lafs now in debian
> Message-ID: <BANLkTikYLkPnzxRKZ=ERZRJbeoP8iXy-Lw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> We don't need it in years. We need it now. We needed it in February. If
> there needs to be a repository in addition to the main Debian one in order
> to ship now rather than later, we can set that up now and get all the
> packages into the mainline later.
> On Jun 19, 2011 7:33 AM, "Jonas Smedegaard" <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>> On 11-06-18 at 06:30pm, Luka Mar?eti? wrote:
>>> On 06/17/2011 09:27 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> >On 11-06-17 at 09:13pm, Luka Mar?eti? wrote:
>>> >>On 06/17/2011 07:24 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> >>>On 11-06-17 at 05:04pm, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> >>>>On 11-06-17 at 04:40pm, bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
>>> >>>>>With the freedombox in mind, I've packaged tahoe-lafs and it's
>>> >>>>>dependencies in Debian with the help of a proper DD. It has been
>>> >>>>>accepted in unstable some hours ago, and it should pop up in the
>>> >>>>>archive soon.
>>> >>>>Cool!
>>> >>>Now available unofficially for Debian stable using this APT line:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> deb http://debian.jones.dk/ squeeze freedombox
>>> >>OT: Dirty hacks are dirty. We need desktop Debian (sid, not
>>> >>testing).
>>> >Uhm, what do you mean by that?
>>> >
>>> >Tahoe-lafs being dirty? My backporting effort being dirty?
>>> >FreedomBox being dirty and desktops not so?!?
>>> Back-porting being dirty, yes.
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying.
>>
>>
>>> There should be no need. Are you suggesting Freedombox will be using
>>> backports?
>>
>> No. The backport is offered as an aid for potential FreedomBox
>> developers interested in unofficially(!) experiement with Tahoe-LAFS on
>> an otherwise stable system.
>>
>> The debian.jones.dk repository is deliberately *not* signed to emphasize
>> that using backports is dirty and risky.
>>
>> (as a related note, I consider backports.debian.org as dirty too, and
>> find it problematic that Debian has no easy mechanism to flag if an
>> install is dirty - independent on whether _delivery_ of it is safe).
>>
>>
>> In my opinion FreedomBox should be a Debian Pure Blend, which implies
>> that it uses only Debian, is only configured by Debian, and is
>> distributed by Debian.
>>
>> I disagree with your possible suggestion that FreedomBox as shipped to
>> our end-users should use Debian unstable. I feel that only a FreedomBox
>> installed from Debian stable (and *only Debian stable, no addons of any
>> kind) should be considered a stable FreedomBox installation.
>>
>> Yes, that means I expect FreedomBox to take years to mature. Until then
>> we can make various experimental, unstable and testing installs - and
>> dirty unofficial mixtures like installs "infected" with material from
>> the debian.jones.dk repository.
>>
>>
>> - Jonas
>>
>> --
>> * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>> * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>>
>> [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110619/d747b223/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 17:38:31 +0200
> From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>
> To: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] tahoe-lafs now in debian
> Message-ID: <20110619153831.GD16465 at jones.dk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> On 11-06-19 at 09:09am, Adam Novak wrote:
>> We don't need it in years. We need it now. We needed it in February.
>> If there needs to be a repository in addition to the main Debian one
>> in order to ship now rather than later, we can set that up now and get
>> all the packages into the mainline later.
>
> Then do it now!
>
>
> ?- Jonas
>
> --
> ?* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
> ?* Tlf.: +45 40843136 ?Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
> ?[x] quote me freely ?[ ] ask before reusing ?[ ] keep private
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 836 bytes
> Desc: Digital signature
> URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110619/783279ef/attachment-0001.pgp>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 06:58:35 +1000
> From: Heddle Weaver <weaver2world at gmail.com>
> To: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] tahoe-lafs now in debian
> Message-ID: <BANLkTikjd5KG=0XEDMJx-=UJ=+ViQ-NL3A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On 19 June 2011 22:31, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, that means I expect FreedomBox to take years to mature. ?Until then
>> we can make various experimental, unstable and testing installs - and
>> dirty unofficial mixtures like installs "infected" with material from
>> the debian.jones.dk repository.
>>
>
> I don't wish to sound overly dramatic, but I don't know if we've got years.
> Old moves to make hacker tools illegal is having a universal revival at
> present and looking like pushing legislation through in the States and
> Europe.
> This is one of the reasons I believe the network has to be peer to peer
> distributed.
> In time, I have little doubt that packages will have to be distributed that
> way also, so I see the priority in getting things up and running in any form
> yesterday.
>
> National environments want to possess the net.
> They will brook no alternate structure there any more than they do in the
> 'real' world now.
> Regards,
>
> Weaver.
> --
>
> Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
> by the wise as false,
> and by the rulers as useful.
>
> ? Lucius Ann?us Seneca.
>
> Terrorism, the new religion.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110620/22787ecd/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>
> End of Freedombox-discuss Digest, Vol 11, Issue 33
> **************************************************
>



Reply to: