[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Social-discuss] Which of these names do you like?

From: Sean Corbett
Subject: Re: [Social-discuss] Which of these names do you like?
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:15:19 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20100411)

I think the intention is that these will just be some base instances of GNU Social to provide a foundation of servers to work with, not the entire social network per se (in the same way that isn't the only StatusNet server). We wouldn't require people to use names from this list.. We still expect (and encourage) people to install their own instances of GNU Social once the alpha/subsequent versions are released.


Natanael wrote:

Would that be for the "official servers", or for what?

I think that the user shouldn't have to pick a server among those within an organisation, so you would pick who should provide you the services rather then a server (such as picking Gnu, not <>). I'm not sure if this list of server names would be useful. I don't think that a lot of the server owners would use this name list.

Den 18 jun 2010 17.02, "Steven DuBois" <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> skrev:

On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 14:38 +0200, Loiseau lucien wrote:
> I don't get the point, if peoples install...

We're compiling a list of names that may be used as titles for seperate
GNU social servers. So rather than telling people to use one centralized
server, they can choose between hundreds of independently run servers.

Steven DuBois <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>
Free Software Foundation - Intern

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]