I think the problem is BOTH protocol as well as infrastructure... but I see it as mostly infrastructure. The way things work now there are too many single points of failure.
But I too misunderstood because I was thinking free as in why should I pay a telco for something which is already free. Here is an example which I was told of today. Apparently the Blackberry system offers a free mail forwarding service. Apparently Bell bills extra for this when its already offered by the Blackberry. I'm fuzzy on hte details because I don't use either system. However I have been told Rim is sueing Bell over this. So when this topic first came up I interpreted this as an infrastructure problem where we want WiFi hotspots and things like a free cell phone service. Like why pay the phone company when you're sitting in Starbuks? Adding extra services like firewall, webservices, a distributed facebook are bonuses which I would be very much in favor of adding. In fact if hte infrastructure is there then it can provide could services as well. On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 03:21:59PM -0600, Greg Saunders wrote: > I kinda thought that but wouldn't a better way to solve this problem be at > the protocol layer and not the infrastructure? > > i.e. httpf or httpfs, smtpf, imapf, dnsf, etc. > > I care more about my message (and communications) being "free" (as in beer > and speech) than the hardware (and OS) it traversed. > > So in a world where you had a mix of "free" and commercial infrastructure > (which seems realistic), my "free" data (communication) would be routed > accordingly. > > ??? > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Gustin Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We are talking about building a free as in speech alternative to facebook > > and twitter. We have the low cost hardware, we have a free as in speech OS > > as well as a solid free (again as speech) stack on top of that. > > > > The problem was that the protests in the Arab world were largely organised > > on Facebook and Twitter. These represent single points of failure and > > censorship. The idea is to have a federated, free and open solution to > > replace this that can't be as easily taken down. Think Identi.ca but for > > facebook. > > > > It is not just Facebook, there are all sorts of hosted (aka "cloud") > > solutions that we have little ultimate control over. It just makes sense to > > have an open and federated alternative. There are a lot of pieces already > > in the works, like Identi.ca and Feng office, and so on. There just is no > > co-ordinated platform to compete with Google Apps/Google+, Facebook etc. > > > > Sent from my Android device. Please excuse my brevity. > > On Jul 5, 2011 2:15 PM, "Greg Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > _______________________________________________ > > clug-talk mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > > **Please remove these lines when replying > > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > **Please remove these lines when replying _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
