<div class="gmail_quote">Thanks for your response,</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Matthew Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mjj29@debian.org">mjj29@debian.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On Tue Sep 07 13:04, Michiel de Jong wrote:<br>
> Small websites can be seen as just havenot-bloggers that just need to<br>
> purchase their FreedomBoxes one-by-one. And probably even, say, the website<br>
> of a newspaper can at some point decide to set up their presence in the free<br>
> world.<br>
<br>
</div>Don't forget the "I don't have a freedombox because I run my own server" crowd.<br>
They have all the freedom they need (the server logs are their own), but they<br>
are using the normal infrastructure.<br>
<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>True! Good point, I hadn't thought of that.</div><div><br></div><div>So then, rephrasing, a 'have' is any internet user that hosts her own data on her own server (whether they run the FreedomBox blend or not). Some of us already have this, so then FreedomBox would play a role in making this easier and also cheaper for a wider public of non-expert users.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also, people that have their own server now, probably use it for webhosting and probably email and some other things, but i reckon there are few people who don't use at least google search, and probably also some other things like facebook, through the 'platform' sites right now. So they are only free with respect to *some* of their internet usage, and would still have something to win from (packages popularised by) the FreedomBox, insofar it brings together the best of .</div>
<div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>Michiel</div></div>