[Freedombox-discuss] Why plug servers and not smart phones?
dr at jones.dk
Wed Jul 17 10:23:49 UTC 2013
Quoting Eugen Leitl (2013-07-17 11:35:05)
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 08:20:25PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Sorry, not parsing you here. FBX is P2P infrastructure, and as
> > > such the only reason why FBX is not a good match for mobile
> > > alternative Android distros is because there is no Android debian
> > > project.
> > Incorrect. FreedomBox is a federated server, not a P2P system.
> "Federated server" doesn't resolve into anything particularly useful
> on my end so far. Is this about the FBX with a swarm of other FBX on
> the Internet appearing as a single server from the the user systems'
> point of view?
No, I am talking about each FreedomBox.
FreedomBox is a "server" in the sense that it interacts only through
other machines, not directly with humans (there is no keyboard or mouse
or screen or microphone or camera to humanly interact with).
FreedomBox is "federated" in the sense that the services running on it
interacts not only with human-operated devices but also with other
Not all programs running on FreedomBox are services, and not all
services are federated. But I find that "federated server" is generally
descriptive for FreedomBox and "P2P" is not.
> From the FBX's point of view, what are the residual dependencies on
> centralist architecture? Ok, it's a Debian project, but depositories
> can be substituted by a self-hosted environment (BitTorrent, or
> related swarm delivery). It does use DNS, but it also uses hidden
> services, and can span up own namespace.
> What else is there that needs not to be there?
What I am talking about is the project we are working on here in Debian.
We call this project "FreedomBox" (not "FBX") and our aim is something
fully integrated into Debian - i.e. a "Debian Pure Blend":
You are free to take inspiration from this project and make something
else. You may then want to consider calling it something more
distinctive than "FBX" to avoid confusing the separate projects.
I find your question interesting, but find it rather confusing to
discuss on this particular mailinglist how to make something else than
what we are working on here. I would therefore appreciate you cc'ing me
if raising such question elsewhere.
> > P2P is applications installed on user-facing devices, talking
> > directly to similar applications on other user-facing devices.
> > FreedomBox is a server - i.e. applications (services) talk to
> > similar applications and to *other* applications (clients) installed
> > on user-facing devices.
> > Both FreedomBox and P2P are different from centralized servers, but
> > in different ways: P2P puts all burden on the user-facing devices
> > and requires redesigned protocols, whereas FreedomBox allows
> > continued use of same client tools and protocols, just stretches
> > federation to an extreme one-network-per-user structure.
> Ok, that makes more sense.
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 490 bytes
More information about the Freedombox-discuss