Jump to content

Talk:GNU social

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Laconica)

Notability

[edit]

How is this notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.112.113 (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The StatusNet software is open source, freely downloadable and deployable under the GNU Affero General Public License. This sets it apart from other microblogging –-- and indeed, most other social networking --- services. yoyo (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of sites

[edit]

We have >12,000 sites on status.net cloud hosting, plus another 2K sites on the public web. --ESP (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StatusNet 1.0.0

[edit]

We've released our 1.0.0 version.

http://status.net/2011/09/30/statusnet-1-0-0-its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-and-i-feel-fine

-ESP (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on GNU social. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on GNU social. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quitter (social network)

[edit]

Quitter (social network) redirects here, but isn't mentioned anywhere in the article (save the title of an external link), so the reader who searches for it is left none the wiser as to what it is. Said link describes Quitter as "a specific installation of GNU social", so adding a mention seems reasonable, but I know nothing about the subject(s). Can a mention be added to make the redirect useful? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Quitter (social network)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Quitter (social network). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Quitter (social network) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archive download

[edit]

There is no archive download option. What may be the reason?. But it is excellent choice for bloggers. B947106 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Un-merge StatusNet and GNU social pages

[edit]

The original article for StatusNet was merged into the article for its successor project GNU social. I propose reversing this decsion, and re-establishing a separate StatusNet article. Here's my logic;

1) The fediverse is now a highly notable topic, due to all the media attention it's received since the change of ownership at Titter (now Xitter).

2) That means the history of the fediverse is a highly notable topic, and pages about key projects in that history are notable-by-association. As well as often being covered themselves in the business press, tech publications, academic papers, and so on.

3) Both StatusNet and GNU social are key projects in that history. Yes, GNU social began as a fork of the StatusNet code, and became the dominant fork after Evan moved on to working on pump.io and its Pump API (the precursor to ActivityPub). But these were 2 distinct projects, run by completely different groups of people, working within 2 completely different organisations; VC-funded StatusNet, and the GNU Project. They're significant to fediverse history in different ways, and deserve their own articles.

If there are no objections, I could start a new stub, link its talk page back here, and vice-versa. But if the original page could be restore, with its history intact, that would save a lot of work. Danylstrype (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea, on the topic of the original StatusNet page though it looks like the GNU social page was the original StatusNet page, but renamed to GNU social after the merger. LemurianPatriot (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. GNU Social was originally part of the Libre.fm effort and later got merged. Mattl (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Strong support for unmerging. Both of these topics are notable on their own merits, and have different enough histories, organizations, founders, that they are worth documenting as distinct pages for anyone curious about these efforts significant to the history of the social web. Their overlapping histories and interactions are worth mentioning in both articles, but should only be part of such articles, rather than merged together. Tantek (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs un-pruning

[edit]

This article has been pruned to within an inch of its life. It began as two articles, one StatusNet and GNU social (maybe 3 if Laconica had its own article?), both with significant amounts of information about fediverse history. Not only details about the software projects themselves (accurate initial release dates etc), but also the people involved, other organisations they cooperated with on the software, what they were trying to achieve and so on. There were significant numbers of third-party sources in earlier versions of both articles. Given the increased notability of the fediverse, as mentioned in the proposal to un-merge, this page needs to be restored somewhat, regardless of the outcome of discussion about the un-merge proposal. Danylstrype (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started by rewriting the existing history section, to remove the obvious inaccuracies, and get the whole thing into a more sensible order. But so far there's really only the history of the precursor software, StatusNet, hardly anything about GNU social itself, or its history of ongoing development and use. Apparently there are still commits being made to the project, and servers running it, so the reports of its demise in the lede are somewhat exaggerated, and also need correction. Danylstrype (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 strong support for un-pruning, and unmerging (as proposed above), and I would also support a separate article for Laconica which itself was notable during its existence and usage. I also support un-pruning independent of unmerging, as I believe that would help restore material that would point to why splitting the current article into 2-3 articles makes even more sense. Tantek (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct?

[edit]

As of Tuesday, August 27, 2024, there are no public servers listed on https://gnusocial.network/try/ or https://the-federation.info/nodes —Hobart (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the lists are just broken, https://gnusocial.net is still online and fedidb.org reports a number of servers. LemurianPatriot (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GNU_social&oldid=1255386020"