[Freedombox-discuss] fully-decentralised > forums
Melvin,
I must take issue with your advice. "Federation" is considerably more than the interoperability provided by a hypertext link. "Federation" is esp. useful when applied to the field of Identity Management, yielding "Federated Identity Management." I have just reviewed and updated the Wikipedia description,
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Federated_Identity_Management
I hope you will see the sense of this distinction better now.
Best,
Thomas
Thomas Ruddy, Switzerland, http://www.thomasruddy.org/
Wiki on Privacy in E-Governance http://www.thomasruddy.eu
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:49:11 +0200
> From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho at gmail.com>
> To: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] fully-decentralised
> forums
> Message-ID:
> ???
> <CAKaEYhLQu=ejK3VRM7oThBfXyZE1A4QR9HqFb6oT3Q=z4mZuLQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 14 September 2011 11:14, Thomas Ruddy <thomas at thomasruddy.org>
> wrote:
> > Someone below known as DrBob or Mark,
> >
> > You asked:
> >>Which other systems provide fully-decentralised
> forums?
> >
> > "Decentralised can imply "distributed" or "federated".
> A list of applications that have support, or plan to
> implement support, for federation (interoperability) are
> distinguished from distributed ones here,
> >
> > http://we-need-a-free-and-open-social-network.wikispaces.com/Information+Center
>
> Nice list.
>
> Dont forget.? When you hyperlinks from one system to
> another (as you
> just did in your post above) then you are already
> federated/interoperable (in this case via HTTP GET).
>
> This was the foundational principle of The Web, and
> probably the main
> reason that it became popular.
>
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > Thomas Ruddy, Switzerland, Privacy in E-Governance http://www.thomasruddy.eu
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:07:12 +0100
> > From: drbob <drbob at lunamutt.com>
> > To: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> > Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Is FreedomBox
> interested in using
> > ? ?Retroshare?
> > Message-ID: <D430B796-BBA3-426E-A976-1CF01628E837 at lunamutt.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> >
> > I thought the point of freedombox was to provide
> privacy and control of your data?
> > This is exactly what Retroshare tries to do - in a
> fully decentralised manner ;)
> >
> > I'd rather not just focus on file-sharing features
> either...
> > Which other systems provide fully-decentralised
> forums?
> >
> > ------
> >
> > Marc, if you are interested in anonymity... Retroshare
> provides strong anonymity.
> > Certainly better than bittorrent or other file-sharing
> networks like Mute.
> >
> > The key is to build a trusted link-level network on
> which the file-sharing can take place.
> >
> > We use the "Turtle" protocol - developed by
> Tanenbaum's group from the Vrije University.
> >
> > Here is a link to an academic paper describing the
> "Strong Anonymity" features of Turtle:
> > http://www.turtle4privacy.org/documents/sec_prot04.pdf
> >
> > and the wikipedia page on Turtle:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_F2F
> >
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> > Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 14, Issue 21
> **************************************************
>
Reply to: