[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNUnet-developers] [Freedombox-discuss] [gnu-prog-discuss] MediaGob

From: James Vasile
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] [Freedombox-discuss] [gnu-prog-discuss] MediaGoblin, now an official GNU project :)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 08:49:16 -0400
User-agent: Notmuch/0.5-344-g86b0fae ( 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 
<address@hidden> wrote:
> 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
>  fascinating.
>  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.
>  l.
>  p.s. ostatus specification here:
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]