[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNUnet-developers] [Freedombox-discuss] [gnu-prog-discuss] MediaGob
Re: [GNUnet-developers] [Freedombox-discuss] [gnu-prog-discuss] MediaGoblin, now an official GNU project :)
Tue, 09 Aug 2011 08:49:16 -0400
Notmuch/0.5-344-g86b0fae (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Nice job, Luke!
On Sun, 7 Aug 2011 14:19:28 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Christopher Allan Webber
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hiya all,
> > I'm happy to say that MediaGoblin is now *officially* *GNU*
> > MediaGoblin. I'm very excited about this!
> > Some information about MediaGoblin if you aren't already familiar:
> > - We're attempting to build a distributed, modern media publishing tool
> > for the web (images for now, but the infrastructure is being designed
> > to also support video and other media types)
> > - We're python based
> > - About that distributed thing: we're currently only distributed in the
> > sense that anyone can run an instance, but the immediate plan is that
> > within the next couple of months we'll begin working on federation
> > via OStatus
> christopher, you're aware that the freedomboxproject (which isn't
> about providing people with actual "boxes" at all, it's about bringing
> together the software that can _be_ installed on a "box") has been
> looking for this kind of stuff, in order to allow people to transition
> off of the present non-free services such as flikr, facebook etc.?
> also, out of interest, have you seen this?
> btw i can't tell if ostatus has built-in firewall-busting (like the
> gnunet infrastructure does). one of the key reasons why all of these
> "federation" projects (e.g. sipwitch) are technically unsuccessful is
> because they don't have proper firewall-busting built-in.
> the reason why they don't have built-in firewall-busting is because
> it's f*****g hard to get right, and takes years to perfect and cover
> all the edge-cases. such as what happens if you have 3 levels of NAT
> (including one within an ISP), how do you even _find_ that that's
> occurring, let alone cope with it (and no, STUN, TUNSS and UPnP aren't
> good enough... on their own)
> many ISPs have designed their infrastructure based around the "you're
> dumb, you'll only wanna download and that'll be HTTP boyo: Like It And
> Lump It" utterly shit paradigm, such that if there are two people on
> the same ISP's local NAT'd segment, it's practically impossible to
> open a direct connection between the two, even though it would be
> faster and would save the ISP a lot of bandwidth and money.
> gnunet is the only free software infrastructure that we have that has
> been designed - somewhat accidentally - to deal with this. it
> contains NAT traversal as well as UPnP, _and_, critically, contains
> "forwarding" for when a direct connection (which is undesirable in any
> case) all goes wrong.
> gnunet was designed to provide a level of anonymity by "hopping"
> packets between systems (in the exact same way that TOR does). it
> turns out that this hopping is crucial to any service that wants
> reliable, easy-to-use, zero-configuration-needed non-server-centric
> peer-to-peer connectivity.
> personally i believe that the easiest way to achieve that is to get
> gnunet-vpn up-and-running (preferably the ipv6 version), at which
> point it will be possible to just have a totally transparent network
> that will "Just Work". at a later point, integration with gnunet's
> modular architecture would provide some level of optimisation, and
> provide anonymity that it is too easy to accidentally ignore (if just
> using gnunet-vpn).
> on top of gnunet-vpn, chris, the service that you've written would be
> absolutely fantastic. i'd be interested to hear peoples' assessment
> of what the benefits of the combination of ostatus, mediagoblin and
> gnunet-vpn would bring.
> p.s. ostatus specification here:
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list