On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:35 AM, <virgins...@vfemail.net> wrote: > The whole facebook/meetup/myspace/<fill in your junk aggregator here> > mess seems to be the product of a number of factors: > (1) People want web presence with prefabricated features like > calendaring, blogging, guestbooks, voting, and messaging. > (2) People want to network their content with other > people/sites/pages. > (3) Most people lack the technical knowledge/skills/resources to do > these things on their own.
Your missing one huge fact here. Even if people have the knowledge, most people don't WANT to. Most people don't even make their own FOOD anymore, what makes you think they would ever want to build their own web sites, or orginize their own data? > It's probably fair to say that most of the folks on this list either > know, or could easily figure out, how to build and host their own web > site. Indeed, objectives (1) and (2) can and have been achieved this > way for many years. Building sites with one's desired features and > linking them to/from other sites IS exactly what the WWW is all about. It doesn't extend to that scale. The macro view of the network does not apply to the micro. There are issues with applying it to the micro, in that your new 'microsite' is now fending for itself on equal footing with macrosites. Then, some cert advisory causes your little microsite to stab you in the back, revealing your data, and worst of all, be utilized to atack your friends microsites. There are construction laws which affect every single home in the united states. Unless you advocate the policing of individuals servers in a simular manner, then you cannot make the comparison between what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do. > The average Joe, however, isn't a member of his local LUG. :) Most > folks don't know how to, or don't care to, build their own Web site. > This has caused people to flock to prefab pseudo-site services like > Myspace, Facebook, etc. By that logic, again, people go to McDonalds NOT becouse they like it, or because it's convienient, but becouse they don't know HOW to cook. > This mass migration to McWebsites completely disregards one of the > fundamental features of the Web: the heterogeneous, distributed nature > of the WWW. This, personally, has me quite concerned. Instead of > hosting a Web site in order to host a Web site, people are putting > "pages" on third-party services like Facebook. [Enter Mr. > Homogeneity stage left.] Of course, there's also the standard set of > security and reliability arguments for and against remote hosting of > live data. And the propsed solution to the issue is.. *druuuuumrooooool please!* To homogonize all of the data in such of a way that people can freely share their data publically with everyone else. > In addition, most of these "services" are mutually incompatible. Note, incompatible isn't the word your looking for. The word is what you quoted above. 'Heterogenouse'. Placing my data on one site doesn't cause another not to work or function. They are all compatible on the internet. > For > example, Myspace and Meetup can't talk to each other. Add to that the > possibiliy that your hosting service might "lock down" access (whether > that means "logging in" to access a Facebook page or paying a > recurring fee to host a Meetup group), and the online community has > both serious practical and philosophical problems. What problems? Are you suddenly barred from using the internet? Or are you just annoyed that no one else wants to pay for you to freely use their service without you paying in any way, shape, or form? Note, paying isn't always cash. Sometimes, it's ad veiws, targetted spam, etc.. And don't make the comparison that information wants to be free. Sure, information wants to be free. However, even if your public library is offered to you for free doesn't exempt you from having to pay taxes to support it, and it CERTAINLY doesn't require that the library then also provide free parking. > Now, here's the FOSS solution I was thinking about! > Objectives (1) and (2) can both be achieved using existing FOSS. This > problem's Achilles' heel is (3). > > If there was some kind of ready-made, drop-in, easy-to-use FOSS > replacement for these services that could be plopped on any old > hosting service, then the problem posed by (3) could be solved. > People would be able to host their OWN sites, and wouldn't be forced > to use mutually incompatible pseudo-hosting solutions like Facebook. Where's yours? > Technically, this could be done a number of ways. Off the top of my > head... > (1) With a suite of PHP scripts that could be installed on any > hosting service that supports PHP (not hard to find). Supported and maintained by who? > (2) By installing a special package on a Linksys router. MMmmm.. New bot targets... Nummy.. Maybee now's the time to start writing Linux worms to infect these, and find nefariouse ways to use your personal data stored there.. > (3) Developing an embedded Linux Internet appliance to host from a > user's home/office connection. (What, my ToS say "no servers"?) As it should. No servers for the general public to retrieve arbitrary data. > Any other ideas? Does anyone know of projects (current or planned) to > fill this niche? I hear there's this awesome new site that allows anyone to put up their own site. And the quality of data being presented is outstanding! It's called 'Geocities'. :-P -- -- Thomas _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
