[Freedombox-discuss] is a distributed search engine (e.g. YaCy) to be part of the FB package?

[nathan nolast]

I think some points we are missing ...

There is a search engine out that is offering some privacy advantages
http://www.ddg.gg    or duckduckgo.com

but more importantly, we will need to debate a topic that has been bounced
around in other similar projects;  a search engine that will not only index
our user published privacy/anonymous aware sites and material, as well as
tor/i2p/freenet sites. The reason why i bring this up is, there was a big
debate is some of the larger anonymous/privacy concerned projects, including
TOR about having an internal search indexing service.. and the general
consensus was that the ability for sites to not be found on a search engine
is a benefit, not a flaw. Not just the idea, but the request that some
sites, their users, and content providers of these sites dont wont to be
found, don't want to be indexed, and dont want to be identified.

Plausible solution, i'll skip the debate because ive seen this discussion a
few times.

TLD's for users to use that are not indexed.   like a mysite.pvy (insert any
fashionalbe TLD ..)


might i add that the key to freedombox's success is not just the basic Fbox
platform, but the protocols and more importantly its network and
infrastructure of which users can contribute to in the form of relays/ exit
nodes / ect ect. mesh/darknet / Freedomnet

let us remember that alot of the services users are ranting and raving over
to be included in the Fbox are web based services and include a way to host
these services by themselves on their computer on the existing network,
therefore as mentioned a thousands times, the incentive for a user to buy a
plugSERVER (might we make a distinction between a plug computer and server)
to run services that are already available on our existing censorship driven
infrastructure is little.

why would i buy a plugserver for 100-150 USD to host a diaspora plug, xmpp
chat services, irc chat, visit tor sites, take place in friendika, or any
other number or set of the most debated services when i already can on my
own computer.

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Luka Marčetić <paxcoder at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 07/16/2011 05:25 PM, James Vasile wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:08:47 +0200, Luka Marčetić<paxcoder at gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/16/2011 05:15 AM, ya knygar wrote:
>>>
>>>> The box as shipped will have a relatively small subset of possible
>>>>>
>>>>>>  packages (just as Debian installation has a small subset of the
>>>>>> repo's
>>>>>>  packages).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Where was it decided and when?
>>>>
>>> He was simply saying that we can't include all packages from the repo in
>>> the FreedomBox sub-distro. In context, it's simply an "ignoratio
>>> elenchi", if you will ( no offense, James ;-) ).
>>>
>> I don't know what that means, but I think you just called me ignorant. ;)
>>
>
> That's not what I said, please see wikipedia article.
>
>
>  He did state it was his opinion that search would be excluded
>>>
>> The basis of my opinion is that I talk to a *lot* of people about what
>> FreedomBox is and what they need.  Search has never been at the top of
>> the list of things people say they want.  Sometimes people ask if it
>> will be there, but nobody so far has indicated this is a higher priority
>> for them than most of the other things FreedomBox is going to try to
>> do.
>>
>
> Maybe people you talked to simply didn't think about it, I don't know.
> There are certainly more pressing issues, like I said, but my opinion is -
> not many. Mesh networking, for example, has been long an idea tied to FB,
> and a very discussed one. I doubt though that many people first think of it
> when discussing FreedomBox. I doubt anyone would say it's a priority. That
> doesn't mean it isn't important enough to be a default feature when it's
> ready. YaCy has been on the mailing list and the wiki for a while now. The
> problem with it is Java. There were alternatives mentioned, but I can't
> remember anymore.
>
>
>   * packages in Debian that people can install as they please to
>>    cherrypick FreedomBox functionality for themselves.  Debian (i.e. you
>>    folks) has the final say on what goes in its repos.  The config
>>    nightmare on this last one scares me.
>>
>
> That's the one we're discussing here. Debian wiki has more.
>
>
>  The bottom line here is that the Foundation will make decisions about
>> what *it* publishes.  But we have no interest in dictating what Debian
>> publishes (as if we could!). I think it's likely that we will also link
>> to the best/popular/most whatever versions others make too.
>>
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
> Luka
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.**alioth.debian.org<Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.**org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**
> freedombox-discuss<http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss>
>



-- 
Thank you for your time
~Nathan
nathan1465 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110716/b18ca58d/attachment.html>