[Freedombox-discuss] Dehierarchicalization (e.g. avoiding DNS) is imperative?

[Christian Brædstrup]

I am not sure if I have understod the problem to full so if I misunderstod
someone then I apologies in advance.

2010/10/7 Matthew Johnson <mjj29 at debian.org>

> This is not to say that we should _require_ users to own a domain name but
> we
> should certainly interoperate with people who do. If nothing else, if this
> is
> to interact with our email and isn't addressable through the DNS then you
> don't
> get to interact with anyone not using a freedom box, which completely
> defeats
> the idea of how to get more people to use it.
>
> I agree. The main concept of freedombox is to give the users total freedom
over there life in cyberspace. That must also include the freedom to choose
what network to use (if any. They could just run the box on there LAN and
not give it access to the WAN). If we require the user to only use DNS or
only a dehierarchicalization network that we made then the point of the
system disappears.

If providing dehierarchicalization is a goal then I am okay with that but we
can't force the user to run the server in that way. Also I am more curious
about how this would implement and seeing some test code and stats then
having a long discussion about if this imaginary package should be a part of
FB. I am all for putting dehierarchicalization at the heart of FB (even in
the kernel to go that far but the user should still have the freedom to
choose) but that project looks to be so big that it perhaps needs it own
project so other distros also can use it if they want. There could still be
a lot of corporation between the two projects but as I personaly see it
FB should be a platform where you could use dehierarchicalization if you
want to.

Cheers,
Christian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20101007/51346cbf/attachment-0001.htm>