[Freedombox-discuss] Friendika

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 13 July 2011 13:09, Mike Macgirvin <mike at macgirvin.com> 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
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>