On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 15:23 -0400, Kaliya wrote:
On Mar 28, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Ted Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 11:13 -0700, Jason Self wrote:
Matt Lee<address@hidden> wrote ..
On 03/28/2010 02:03 PM, Henry Litwhiler wrote:
I don't see why users have to be able to use commodity hosting.
If we
make it easy enough, anyone can host their own GNU Social
install, p2p
style.
Because I don't believe the majority of people will.
What will they host it on? The majority of Facebook users don't
have a
machine they can install their own servers on. Being able to use
this
from anywhere is key for success, and that means browser based.
+1
Plus, remember that many ISPs (at least in the U.S.) prohibit their
customers
from running "servers" under penalty of cancellation.
The GNU Project should not bend itself to the whims of profiteering
leeches.
I guess it is totally unsurprising to hear talk like this.
I have been working with very idealistic folks working on identity and
much of what you are talking about for a long time. In order to get
systems of the magnitude of everyone having control of their own data
online and the freedom to peer-to-peer link and freedom to organize
one needs to work with business and transform the exploitive systems
that underly our world today into ones that are ethically moral and
for the people.
To get things to work and be supported resources and money need to flow.
Business in itself is NOT the DEVIL.
Indeed it is not, but that was not what I was addressing. Businesses
that attempt to divide users so that they cannot interact with one
another as peers and make them "consumers" are the devil.
Maybe there are good ethical businesses in the world - such a question
is outside the scope of GNU Social. But these ISPs and non-free software
companies, they certainly are not.