-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 "Why Not Both?"
;-) edhelas wrote: > On dim., nov. 2, 2014 at 2:37 , rysiek <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> okay, fuck that, I'm going to dive in, because the level of FUD >> is strong in this one. > > Well, thanks :) > >> >> >> Dnia niedziela, 2 listopada 2014 12:19:24 edhelas pisze: >>> I can resume this fragmentation issue by a simple sentence that >>> I'm saying more and more these days : "If you have a problem, >>> do not write an API, write a protocol". >> >> Sure: https://xkcd.com/927/ >> >> I don't understand why we need over9000 different, incompatible >> federated social web protocols. It would seem to me we need *ONE* >> with several *GOOD* implementations. >> >>> The social federation protocol is already here : it's XMPP. And >>> yes it can support everything a social network has to offer >>> (feeds, subscriptions, profiles, contact list…). There is >>> already millions of users on the XMPP network, and you can >>> easily find several clients on all the plateforms for it. >>> >>> I'm working since 2008 on the Movim project >>> (https://movim.eu/), to build a full, good looking, >>> "decentralized" (federated) and open source social network on >>> XMPP. And believe me, yes it's possible. >> >> I won't discuss that. I will however point out that "possible" is >> not enough. > > It's possible to push it forward and try to not reinvent the wheel > again and again by creating a new protocol. > >> >> >>> I like the link that the guy made in the presentation with >>> Firefox. Why Firefox surpassed IE ? Because they just choose to >>> implement the W3C standards and try to improve it (and they >>> offer some nice features too). >> >> Absolutely. >> >>> Diaspora, GNU Social, Friendica are not trying to do that, they >>> create their own "proprietary" protocol >> >> Oh, wow. Do you even understand the words that you use? I mean, >> "proprietary"? It's documented, the code is open, the protocol >> has at least two FLOSS implementations. Seriously, what were you >> trying to achieve here? > > Ok, the term "proprietary" was a little strong. Of course the > sourcecode of theses projects is open. But can you give me any > serious documentations (more than a Wiki or some ML links) that can > help me to implement properly the Diaspora/Friendica/GNU Social > protocols like RFC, IETF stuffs ? > > A protocol have to be stable in the time, most of theses project > just create their own protocol from their need. The Diaspora > protocol was re-written already one time (which totally broke the > Friendica compatibility at this time), the guys from Status.net > moved to Pump.io… > >> >> >>> to talk between each other and after that face the same issues >>> than all the others network : "Hey, we are not compatibles ! >>> Lets create an API and the other networks will be compatible >>> with us". >> >> No. They created a protocol that other networks implement. For >> example Friendica implements GNU Social's protocol, Diaspora's >> protocol and their own (documented, opensourced) protocol. Red >> similarily. > > No, they wrote their own protocol for their own project, and > someone just try to implement it to try to be compatible. But it's > a one way work, the guys from Diaspora will not adapt their > protocol to help the guys from Friendica/GNU Social/whatever. > >> >> >> Reading a bit on it would be a good idea. >> >>> So keep calm and implement XMPP ;) >> >> No. Come to The Federation assembly at #31C3, get involved in a >> more meaningful way than calling open protocols "proprietary" >> just because you don't know them, and try working with quite a >> few projects that already cooperate and federate with common >> *protocols* (not APIs). >> >> The question is not "which protocol is better", because while we >> bikeshed on this question, people are still sitting on Failbroke >> and Shitter, instead of moving out of these walled gardens. >> >> The question is: "how can we *cooperate* to get people on the >> libre, federated side of social networks". 1.5 year ago I >> submitted to all the fedsocnet devs a simple question, here's the >> link again: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fedsocweb/2013May/0058.html >> >> >> The answer was: "impossiburu, we won't, not invented here, my protocol is >> better than yours". So instead of trying to herd those cats, I >> am grabbing the opportunity arising from the fact that we already >> have The Federation. Let's expand it and build upon it, eh? > > What is your plan with The Federation ? To build a project to help > all theses project to talk each others and find a way to > "standardize" the communications between them to be compatible with > eachothers ? > > Then you will define some basic schema of authentication/packet > format (JSON/HTML/XML…)/global architecture… In the end it will > looks like this : https://xkcd.com/927/ > > If your aim is to ask theses project to have a public API to share > stuffs between their different servers, well good luck. > >> >> Shouting "XMPP! XMPP!" is not helping. > > No, but I prefer to contribute and improve a 15 years old protocol, > with millions of users and hundred of implementations, managed by a > strong Fundation that works with the IETF than on a 4 yo protocol > implented by ~2 project where all the documentation you can find on > it is here > https://wiki.diasporafoundation.org/Federation_protocol_overview. > >> >> >> -- Pozdr rysiek > - -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUVooxAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C2UYH/iHIaDFFyj3dwAXRFsLotmRy M7TfDItF0CVNkSRLXfpBytt6RXMLgQnF9G8cd9SbVTdCWzP1kM3QO/aLWbw42SYj MCSM0vXtiheY12cgwoGbrMainCC9ovyoY7gS09ch1NMjTp8xZJVfOL4ZBOzAdoQB XRjWy1egPWv6hn6AtW1kSV0s0bbwyeBZ5oYE5kJkYIGg/eYqHkyHGyqrjk6JbMCa pvxBzli/h4Z3BtRtpfV17FRcWZ6LRhjZWbPy5yNHLyZmte+huWq5xTIa+DnOrc5D AoVXnIlpL60aVBXxH15lS90jNsEdvzG6jsmJ2D+Q7JbVkAaCnU6aS+xwYrBLuRc= =PvkC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
