[Freedombox-discuss] Why plug servers and not smart phones?
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:23:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > From the FBX's point of view, what are the residual dependencies on
> > centralist architecture? Ok, it's a Debian project, but depositories
> > can be substituted by a self-hosted environment (BitTorrent, or
> > related swarm delivery). It does use DNS, but it also uses hidden
> > services, and can span up own namespace.
> > What else is there that needs not to be there?
> What I am talking about is the project we are working on here in Debian.
So do I. I seem to detect some unnecessary antagonism in a few of your
past emails. I do not understand the reason for it, unless you want to
deliberately drive away supporters. I'm not a Debian dev, but I like
Debian. I use Debian everywhere in my projects and advise other people
to pick Debian over other Linux server distros. I'm not used to the
Theo light treatment from the Debian side of things. That would be a novel
experience I'm not sure I'm looking forward to.
> We call this project "FreedomBox" (not "FBX") and our aim is something
I'm using FBX as an abbreviation for FreedomBox, just as P2P
is an abbreviation for peer-to-peer. It is not my term, it has
been coined by somebody else on this mailing list.
> fully integrated into Debian - i.e. a "Debian Pure Blend":
> You are free to take inspiration from this project and make something
> else. You may then want to consider calling it something more
> distinctive than "FBX" to avoid confusing the separate projects.
FBX is FreedomBox. If you consider FBX to be brand dilution, and officially
deprecate its use I'm not going to use it. Are you considering the FBX a
bbreviation brand damage to the Debian project Freedombox?
> I find your question interesting, but find it rather confusing to
> discuss on this particular mailinglist how to make something else than
I'm not trying to make something else, at least not yet.
I'm still waiting for a project milestone mature enough to
pitch to less technical users. The project looks somewhat
stalled, but I'm far from giving up on it yet.
> what we are working on here. I would therefore appreciate you cc'ing me
> if raising such question elsewhere.
I don't intend to raise such questions everywhere. In fact, I think
I'll stop mentioning Freedombox as a generic existing project, in
order to avoid any potential confusion.
> > > P2P is applications installed on user-facing devices, talking
> > > directly to similar applications on other user-facing devices.
> > >
> > > FreedomBox is a server - i.e. applications (services) talk to
> > > similar applications and to *other* applications (clients) installed
> > > on user-facing devices.
> > >
> > > Both FreedomBox and P2P are different from centralized servers, but
> > > in different ways: P2P puts all burden on the user-facing devices
> > > and requires redesigned protocols, whereas FreedomBox allows
> > > continued use of same client tools and protocols, just stretches
> > > federation to an extreme one-network-per-user structure.
> > Ok, that makes more sense.
> Great :-)