Quoting Eugen Leitl (2013-07-17 13:34:32) > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:23:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > From the FBX's point of view, what are the residual dependencies > > > on centralist architecture? Ok, it's a Debian project, but > > > depositories can be substituted by a self-hosted environment > > > (BitTorrent, or related swarm delivery). It does use DNS, but it > > > also uses hidden services, and can span up own namespace. > > > > > > What else is there that needs not to be there? > > > > What I am talking about is the project we are working on here in > > Debian. > > So do I.
Great. Then your answer above to your own question makes no sense to me, however: The project we are [both] working on cannot substitute its Debian packages with something self-hosted, and still be "in Debian". > I seem to detect some unnecessary antagonism in a few of your past > emails. That stems from frustration. Frustration that I felt unable to explain myself to you. I kept feeling that you where trolling - deliberately sidestep or misinterpret what I wrote. Really great that we are on the same page. Sorry for my lousy attitude. > I'm not used to the Theo light treatment from the Debian side of > things. That would be a novel experience I'm not sure I'm looking > forward to. What do "Theo light treatment" mean? > > You are free to take inspiration from this project and make > > something else. You may then want to consider calling it something > > more distinctive than "FBX" to avoid confusing the separate > > projects. > > FBX is FreedomBox. If you consider FBX to be brand dilution, and > officially deprecate its use I'm not going to use it. Are you > considering the FBX a bbreviation brand damage to the Debian project > Freedombox? If anyone were to control "FreedomBox" as a brand, that would be the FreedomBox Foundation, I suspect, not this Debian project. I do not speak on behalf of the FreedomBox Foundation and therefore is not talking about "brand damage". I simply find our varying choice of words/abbreviations confusing, that's all. Especially when used to describe things that does not fit my understanding of what it is we are doing together here - e.g. that this Debian project need not use Debian packages. > > I find your question interesting, but find it rather confusing to > > discuss on this particular mailinglist how to make something else > > than > > I'm not trying to make something else, at least not yet. > I'm still waiting for a project milestone mature enough to > pitch to less technical users. The project looks somewhat > stalled, but I'm far from giving up on it yet. Great. > > what we are working on here. I would therefore appreciate you > > cc'ing me if raising such question elsewhere. > > I don't intend to raise such questions everywhere. In fact, I think > I'll stop mentioning Freedombox as a generic existing project, in > order to avoid any potential confusion. I fail to understand how not talking about it can help avoid confusion. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
