Re: [Social-discuss] GNU-social features

[Steevo Wymzelico]

oh yeah, but how would one go get those shapes? (to learn about that engine)

seems like it needs a quantum gravity slide, findable maps from
spectral mind maintenance whims, unifying stuff about GNU social.

eg. the README being the top level for now and the other detective
work, having a system for finding these weird qualities of the mind
across a huge pile of it is the new stuff.

I can only offer my services as a Qualified Artist to make something
nice to look at about it, if it's possible to communicate to me what
to communicate about it. its about generating compression patterns,
distributing, phenomena. a box with snakes crawling out of it is what
I can see so far.

what/where are places?

On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Adam Moore <address@hidden> wrote:
> Melvin Carvalho <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> Not sure I agree with this.  GNU Social was an attempt for GNU to make
>> a "social" system, NOT a "microblogging" system.  When it started Matt
>> Lee sat down with Tim Berners-Lee and designed a great system.  The
>> main problem with realizing that dream was lack of resources.
>>
>> I chatted with Matt at the start and we wanted to make a generic
>> social layer for GNU that would fit into libre fm, gnu social and
>> other things.  We just didnt have the man power.  There was talk about
>> basing gnu social on elgg, but when status.net wasnt wanted anymore
>> and the owners moved on, the donation of code swung the path.  This
>> was mainly due to a small dev team finding it too attractive to reuse
>> rather than start from scratch.
>>
>> Reusing comes with its own problems.  Status net was abandoned for a
>> reason.  And the problems it had then, more or less, still remain,
>> mainly scalability.  OStatus is one of the big problems.  It was
>> lobbied for by web 2.0 folks that are good at shouting loudest and
>> drowning out others (like Tim Beners-Lee, who is still going).  Even
>> the creators are moving to activity streams 2.0.
>>
>> So while lots of the above may be completely accurate *given the
>> current context*, it's important to note that's a function of the
>> history, not necessarily the philosophy.  The philosophy has changed
>> before and could again.
>
> Thanks for the additional information, Melvin.  I tried to paint a
> picture of the way things currently are, but wasn't really qualified to
> say how things were (or still are) meant to be.
>
> It's worth restating for Mr. Miltenburg, or whomever else migh come
> looking, that there *is* a (more-or-less) functional general-purpose
> social-media engine in the belly of the GNU social software.  All kinds
> of applications for sharing any type of media or activity could be built
> with it, and this is what makes it interesting.  However, the current
> environment is very microblogging-oriented.
>