4 ms·

We need something along the lines of Diaspora (Open and Distributed). This would encourage geeks to develop on the platform due to it being distributed it would

We need something along the lines of Diaspora (Open and Distributed). This would encourage geeks to develop on the platform due to it being distributed it would be hard/impossible to shutdown thus shall be around for ever (Twitter might not be). And due to the openness of the codebase etc people would start setting up hosts (Just like Wordpress or Diaspora etc.)

jv22222 14y ago
Are you thinking something like Wordpress meets Twitter?
- bencevans 14y ago
  Kind of but not Wordpress as Wordpress is far too bloated for 140 char status's. I'd relate it more to Diaspora that Wordpress personally.
- bencevans 14y ago
  Take a look at StatusNet. That's effectively a Open Source Twitter Clone.
  - jv22222 14y ago
    I think non-profit and open-source might be being confused here. I'm talking about a highly publicized non profit utility style global API. To make it easy build-on and fast to proliferate it should probably be an always-on centralized service.
    - riffic 14y ago
      OStatus.
mhurron 14y ago
Because Diaspora has done so well. The number of people that care about why Diaspora exists and why a Twitter clone in the same vein would exist is extremely small. Small userbase means the service is basically dead on arrival.
- weego 14y ago
  Completely this. Developers seem to think that the business stances Facebook and Twitter take can be solved purely with more development. They can't be. The problem is hearts and minds of users.
  - seagreen 14y ago
    Actually lack of good development may be the problem. Mike Cardwell's opinion of status.net certainly isn't very high: https://twitter.com/mickeyc/status/236796994532827136 https://twitter.com/mickeyc/status/236796994532827136 and a lot of disaspora's momentum was destroyed by their early security issues (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, I wasn't following diaspora that closely at the time). Remember that as soon as even a few distributed or open systems get going they can be linked together. At that point any new competitors to FB/twitter have a strong incentive to be open as well because it gives them that precious starting network. Then, like good guerillas, you engage the centralized service in a drawn out struggle. They have to win every time, because as soon as their userbase slips it's never coming back. You only have to win once. (You can lose unlimited companies/protocols as long as more and better ones are taking their place) EDIT: P.S. I totally stole this strategy from a Pournelle book (Prince of Sparta). "We Helots be coming back for more. Again . . . and again . . . and again." Just because they're the bad guys doesn't mean we can't use their tactics!
- flatline3 14y ago
  Diaspora was technologically stunted. It was ridiculous to expect extremely junior developers to design and build a distributed messaging system.

jv22222 14y ago

Are you thinking something like Wordpress meets Twitter?

bencevans 14y ago
Kind of but not Wordpress as Wordpress is far too bloated for 140 char status's. I'd relate it more to Diaspora that Wordpress personally.
bencevans 14y ago
Take a look at StatusNet. That's effectively a Open Source Twitter Clone.
- jv22222 14y ago
  I think non-profit and open-source might be being confused here. I'm talking about a highly publicized non profit utility style global API. To make it easy build-on and fast to proliferate it should probably be an always-on centralized service.
  - riffic 14y ago
    OStatus.

mhurron 14y ago

Because Diaspora has done so well. The number of people that care about why Diaspora exists and why a Twitter clone in the same vein would exist is extremely small. Small userbase means the service is basically dead on arrival.

weego 14y ago
Completely this. Developers seem to think that the business stances Facebook and Twitter take can be solved purely with more development. They can't be. The problem is hearts and minds of users.
- seagreen 14y ago
  Actually lack of good development may be the problem. Mike Cardwell's opinion of status.net certainly isn't very high: https://twitter.com/mickeyc/status/236796994532827136 https://twitter.com/mickeyc/status/236796994532827136 and a lot of disaspora's momentum was destroyed by their early security issues (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, I wasn't following diaspora that closely at the time). Remember that as soon as even a few distributed or open systems get going they can be linked together. At that point any new competitors to FB/twitter have a strong incentive to be open as well because it gives them that precious starting network. Then, like good guerillas, you engage the centralized service in a drawn out struggle. They have to win every time, because as soon as their userbase slips it's never coming back. You only have to win once. (You can lose unlimited companies/protocols as long as more and better ones are taking their place) EDIT: P.S. I totally stole this strategy from a Pournelle book (Prince of Sparta). "We Helots be coming back for more. Again . . . and again . . . and again." Just because they're the bad guys doesn't mean we can't use their tactics!
flatline3 14y ago
Diaspora was technologically stunted. It was ridiculous to expect extremely junior developers to design and build a distributed messaging system.