Re: [GNUnet-developers] website and logo rework

[t3sserakt]

On 26.01.2018 15:58, carlo von lynX wrote:
> This time there aren't dozens of things keeping me from
> answering in due time!  :)  Sorry for the delay regarding
> pubsub.
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 01:07:08AM +0100, amirouche wrote:
>> I got into creating a new logo for gnunet
>> logos and mockup at https://imgur.com/a/ZOjNU
> Fabulous. I didn't dare to drop the gnu on
> the web which made all my attempts look
> little better than the original, but doing
> a network of cuddly bubbly nodes is a new
> way to look at it. Great.

+1

> For this bubbly version, my partner obviously
> liked the pink one best.. and she said we can
> reduce the number of letters in bubbles by
> using the 'N' twice as in:
>
>     GNU*
>     *E**
>     *T**
>     ****
Would be nice to see this version in action too.
>> Starting up with the Internet is broken is
>> not very positive and most likely people 
>> coming to the website already know that.

+1

> I heard somebody making the same observation.
>
>> I think about: ethical, energy efficient, secure
>> and anonymous.
> In
> regards to 'anonymous', not only is it too early to
> make that claim, it is also a word with too many
> meanings that could one day become detrimental.
> Maybe we could focus on 'metadata protection', while
> pointing out that the interactions themselves are
> actually end-to-end authenticated, not anonymous.
> But, truth is, we don't know how well gnunet protects
> metadata if CADET isn't actively routing in non-deter-
> mistic ways, yet. Once we have onion routing and
> mixnets it's a different story.

Yes, metadata protection is better, and yes we have
to be careful with that.

By the way, is it a stupid idea to let the endpoint of
a cadet path be not the endpoint of user communication,
to protect meta data? Maybe this is easier to accomplish
than onion routing, or an additional protection together
with OR.

>
>> Distributed Application Framework
> A network stack is always about applications you do
> on top. The fact that it brings 'distributed networ-
> king' into the generic domain of application design
> is the novelty. With bogus javascript libraries
> calling themselves 'framework' I would avoid such a
> reductive term. We are replacing TCP/IP with a stack
> that is by far more advanced and complex. We should
> actually find words that make it clear that we are
> doing something bigger than the current Internet.
> Calling it a "distributed networking stack" is the
> least we can do IMHO. In ancient Roman terms I would
> say we are upgrading from the latrines to the Coliseum.

What about "Next Generation Internet" NGI?

cheers

t3ss

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature