On 13 July 2011 13:09, Mike Macgirvin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> This looks like an interesting approach. Has anybody used it/hacked >>> it/loved it/hated it? Is this something you want to see in the >>> FreedomBox? >>> >>> http://project.friendika.com/ >> >> There are many other projects like it and a W3C incubator for >> standardization of federation protocols: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/Platforms >> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/ >> > > I wrote Friendika initially so I'm a bit biased.
Thanks for taking the time to write! :) > > The W3C incubator is completely dominated by OStatus and a couple of people > clamouring for WebID. OStatus has no privacy (really, none) and the major > players are only beginning to discuss this shortcoming. WebID is an SSL > infrastructure - which solves privacy issues at a cost of everybody being > accountable to an SSL signing authority. There are other lesser technical > issues, but this is the elephant in the room. OStatus is a pretty good tech, one of the first to provide a reasonably comprehensive suite. Hopefully many more will follow, the idea is to ineroperate, IF the tech shows signs of interop/ Some of the best architects of the Web are supporters of WebID, inc. the person who invented it. > > You are welcome to chase the W3C, but it will be a long time before you see > anything that provides secure communication, and when you do - you will know > that it was designed by committee. Might as well just use SMTP and be done > with it. What's the rationale for this? Why not just encrypt with your public key, and the recipient dycrypts with theirs. Or have a shared secret? Im a grass roots developer and have been a W3C skeptic. But having spent the last few years looking at what they've actually been doing, I cant help but be impressed. W3C is around to make sure everyone plays fairly, and everyone gets a say. OStatus are there because they have made an effort and have implementations. Zot can be too. Facebook recently joined the W3C, too and google have been a member for a while. > > Diaspora has gone it alone and developed their own privacy layer - as have > we. We're currently developing a second generation private messaging and > remote access protocol (called "Zot!") drawing from our real world > experience with cross-network communications. It is public domain. > > I don't believe for a minute that Friendika will solve the Fredombox's > unique requirements, especially since we are somewhat tied to existing > infrastructure at the network layers. However our technology is open to all > and we believe strongly in many Freedombox concepts - privacy, security, > decentralisation. You may find something within the project that you can > use. As I follow these discussions, I'll be sure to speak up if we already > have a solution to a problem you're facing, or especially if we chose a > different solution than you because we got bitten in the butt trying it your > way. The more implementations we have the better. The key is to allow interop, with others that have the same goals. > > _______________________________________________ > Freedombox-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss > _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
