Wouldn't IRC/Jabber break anonymity ? Or, maybe you're speaking of IRC/Jabber over Freenet and i'm wrong ...
On 4/22/09, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 22 April 2009 13:53:45 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> Am Mittwoch 22 April 2009 14:38:29 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> > > other member of the group as freenet friends, or should they only have >> > > their closest contacts? >> > >> > I don't know. IMHO 150 is probably too much, have you spoken privately >> > to >> > all these people? >> >> I think all people I know privately, including school and university, > account >> for maybe 100 to 120 people. Of them I'd trust about 40 as connections :) >> >> If I add people I only know via email, these numbers go up to maybe >> 150/50. > > IMHO that would be great - any of the above figures - especially when you > take > into account uptime problems. Practically speaking most people you know > won't > run Freenet. However, all the members of a mailing list or a university > department isn't quite the same thing - 150 people for just one group, plus > all the other groups and people... >> >> > > If they should have more contacts, we'll need stronger friend > interaction >> > > features, so we can keep the cost for social interaction with friends >> > > low. >> > >> > We need stronger friend interaction features full stop. >> >> How about a shoutbox as first step? >> >> There you can send messages to all your contacts. >> >> Naturally each shoutbox will have different entries, so it's no real chat, >> > but >> at least it would allow giving quick status messages (that's the main >> communication i did: "Sorry, my box was down for a day - I'm up again" :) > > Well, you can check the box next to each peer ... but yes we should improve > this. This might be related to vive's student's task? >> >> > > A Jabber server which automatically adds all friends as contacts would >> > > > be >> > > an option, I think. >> > >> > Hmmm perhaps. >> >> It would also add better information about online contacts - directly in >> the >> multi-messenger people use anyways. >> >> Maybe it could even get control features, like the jabber server from >> livejournal (you can post LJ entries via jabber). >> >> Another option would be IRC :) >> >> But both have the drawback of drawing people away from the webinterface, > which >> increases the maintenance cost for toad. > > Not sure I follow. >> >> Best wishes, >> Arne >
