rogerbraun

The install docs are on the wiki: https://git.pleroma.social/pleroma/pleroma/wikis/Installing%...

Some background information on ActivityPub in Pleroma:

https://blog.soykaf.com/post/activity-pub-in-pleroma/

https://blog.soykaf.com/post/what-is-pleroma/

no, we really don't. Not every tool needs to be equipped for private discussions. ActivityPub and OStatus are used for Twitter-style communication. Those aren't high security communication services.

it's really not worth it. If people want to exchange encrypted messages, they should use a proper tool for that.

In AP, messages are signed with http signatures (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cavage-http-signatures-09). OStatus has a similar mechanism called salmons, which are signed XML payloads.

there's #social on freenode, although it's not very active. You might have more luck asking your questions on #pleroma on freenode (another Ostatus/AP server) or on the mastodon discord.

messages are signed using http signatures (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cavage-http-signatures-09)

In OStatus 'salmons' are messages sent from one server to another that contain posts. They are signed, so the receiving server knows if it can trust it.

If person peter@example.com mentions bob@differentsite.org, a salmon is sent from example.com to differentsite.org containing the message. The endpoint that this is posted to is the 'salmon endpoint'.

Using a second endpoint for privacy enhanced messages would have the way to go. Old servers wouldn't ever receive private messages, while new servers that understood the extensions could have kept 90% of their old code and infrastructure.

this doesn't make much sense. The very easy way to add AP-level privacy to ostatus was to just use a different salmon endpoint for private messages. This way, messages would never have federated to servers that don't respect privacy settings (by accident. if the server leaks on purpose, that's a different story).

This solution was discussed at length with mastodon devs before the implementation of the private messages. It was ignored. Now we have a situation were Mastodon is likely to switch off OStatus soon, leaving behind all those projects that don't have the dev resources to rewrite their core federation systems every few years.

The Ostatus/AP dual stack is also pretty hacky and not even valid according to the AP spec, although it's getting better all the time.

Yes, and this was known to the main developer. There were easy ways to make it at least private if the other server was trusted, but they chose to not implement them.

Privacy on the level of AP would have been very easy to add, by just using a different salmon endpoint for private messages. This was discussed at length back then, but Mastodon still chose to implement the leaky-by-default changes. There's nothing in AP that can't be done using OStatus, with very very minor extensions.

sadly, the federated timeline is close to useless. I don't understand why it isn't the public timeline that's exposed.

This is something that was always a problem on Mastodon, but you can use other fediverse servers like https://social.sakamoto.gq/main/all to look at the network, they show things publicly.

If you are European you're probably part of the visa waiver program anyway.

I looked into this a while ago. Here are some notes I made:

- https://git.heldscal.la/roger/the_wired/wiki/OStatus

- https://git.heldscal.la/roger/the_wired/wiki/Salmon

Hope it helps. Essentially, you can basic functionality going by implementing webfinger and an atom feed. This old guide might be helpful: https://web.archive.org/web/20120306210855/http://ostatus.or...

It depends on your use case. The overhead is much smaller than you probably think and the Erlang / Elixir programming model works extremely well for some cases, networking for example. I've been writing pieces for a Bittorrent client in Elixir. Using a process for every connection to another client or for every torrent makes structuring your code really easy.

How do you take photos that look like the old ones? They seem to have much more interesting colors.

That's what I meant, sorry for the confusion.

Thanks for the answer, but if you don't care about this use case, then I think I'll just use a different application that does.

The things I don't like about Signal / Textsecure are:

- Requires Google / Apple services

- No easy way to self host

- Accounts bound to a phone number

- No desktop client ("Being worked on" for months now...)

All these things can be solved for me by using XMPP with Conversations on Android.

So maybe the right thing to do is to stop complaining. Signal / Textsecure is just meant for other people than me.

Just use Conversations. It can now use the same protocol and is the best XMPP client there is.

I'm completely baffled that the Textsecure people insist on using the gapps package, which is of course an extreme privacy risk.

What I find much more amazing is that the thought experiment of Schrödinger's cat is so often used to explain the implications of quantum mechanics, because it was meant as a way to show that all that superposition stuff clearly doesn't happen in normal life, so something has to be wrong / missing in quantum mechanics.

I use it, it's pretty good. As simple as it can be, easily integrates with everything.

The most modern RMS proof laptop is the Thinkpad X200 with Libreboot. It's probably still faster than this chip.

'As with many extensions of startup culture...' - is this true? Are american hacker spaces grown out of startup culture?

It's always a shame when the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is presented as how reality works. Most of the perceived weirdness of QM comes from the leaps of faith required to make the Copenhagen interpretation work.

There are lots of countries without a minimum wage that still have lots of unemployment.

Replying to stephenr:

Why? To prevent the vast majority of companies with the money to actually support and grow such a project the way LLVM has, from doing so?

No, because the freedom of new languages in LLVM would be guarenteed.

Again, you can of course have the opinion that this is not important, or not as important as the success of LLVM, but that's your decision.

I'm not trying to insult anyone. The BSD and similar licenses are of course free software licenses, and the FSF does (again, of course) acknowlegde that.

Still, a company like Apple can use these licenses to take outside contributions in their proprietary software. Freemium might not be the right word for that, but I think it's not unreasonable to dislike these (completely legal) practice.

I guess one aspect is that LLVM (which Apple doesn't completely own, as far as I know) should have been copylefted to begin with, then any changes (like adding a language) would need to be shared with the community.

The exact same situation happened with Objective C and GCC. In that case, the Objective C frontend was released as free software.

I think its both insulting and an incredibly narrow-view to call permissively licensed software "pseudo freemium".

I don't mean the general case of permissively licensed software, but the way that the article expects Apple to act.