Slashdot Mirror
Open-Source Social Network Diaspora Goes Live
CWmike writes "Diaspora, a widely anticipated social network site built on open-source code, has cracked open its doors for business, at least for a handful of invited participants. 'Every week, we'll invite more people,' stated the developers behind the project, in a blog item posted Tuesday announcing the alpha release of the service. 'By taking these baby steps, we'll be able to quickly identify performance problems and iterate on features as quickly as possible.' Such a cautious rollout may be necessary, given how fresh the code is. In September, when the first version of the working code behind the service was posted, it was promptly criticized for being riddled with security errors. While Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg may not be worried about Diaspora quite yet, the service is one of a growing number of efforts to build out open-source-based social-networking software and services."
But, heck, if Diaspora has the mindshare maybe we should go with it... even if its not technically the greatest?
What mindshare, exactly, does Diaspora have? As far as I can tell, it's some subset of the same people who keep thinking desktop Linux is going to take off any year now.
So far, in these comments, pretty much every pro-Diaspora commenter mentions how it's open source. I've got news for you guys - the vast majority of people don't give a rat's rear end whether it, or any other piece of software, is open source or not. Sure, you can argue why they should care, and pretend all the great unwashed are going to awaken and come around to your way of thinking really soon now... but the onus is on you to show that's even remotely likely.
#DeleteChrome
If you think about it, /. is like a facebook for nerds. Articles are similar to walls, moderation is used as the 'like' button, blogs are like notes, and I /. stalk just like on facebook. :P
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
It seems that Diaspora somehow got that NYTimes article, got mucho donations from that even though at that point they had NO CODE, and yet somehow now I hear about it all the time as somehow it's going to be a "facebook killer".
Linux got popular initially because Torvalds is an excellent programmer and his project spread through word-of-mouth. Diaspora got discovered because there was a Times article about vaporware.
That is a bit of stretch.
There are a complete lack of pictures on slashdot on which to formulate a decision to stalk or ignore. Unless we begin uuencoding our pictures into our posts and blogs there is no evidence to base this decision.
In order to assist in the stalking section we will need the addition of a radial button that defines our hotness aka stalking susceptibility. Until this is implemented we will have to identify our level of attractiveness manually.
I of course am smoking hot.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
It's probably invitation-only because they have no way of searching for other Diaspora users and adding them short of exchanging URLs: http://groups.google.com/group/diaspora-discuss/browse_thread/thread/60f32519f623e690/23109444fefa1640?#23109444fefa1640 Diaspora's answer to Facebook's search? Google search! (I'm not making this up, read that thread)
Linux "got popular" because *some* ( Windows still rules the market ) people wanted an alternative to Microsoft Windows.
Diaspora *may* get popular because many people want an alternative to Facebook.
Once again: WE KNOW that you can build a social network, and we also know that you can build an open-source social network. It's been done. The project was not "interesting" from that perspective - Facebook, Myspace, Orkut, Appleseed, and a host of other 'social networks' have already done one or both of those things.
The key differentiator for Diaspora was the goal of creating a secure, decentralized model that put the user in charge of their own privacy. The differentiator emphatically WAS NOT that they were "open source" - again, that's already been proven to be possible by other projects.
Which brings us to the question of why we *should* give a shit about Diaspora. I'll let their Kickstarter writeup speak for itself, here's what they had to say:
Please point out for me where they say "we aim to open source Facebook," because I'm not seeing it.
The GOAL of Diaspora was to create a more-secure social networking environment which gave control of user privacy back to the users.
The METHOD they intended to use was to open-source what they produced, and then build a community around it.
The RESULT was an unmitigated mess: the code they spent months writing did NOTHING to achieve their stated goals, in fact it was even LESS secure and private than Facebook, because it ignored standard and common security and privacy practices - things which should be part of your design from the ground up, including user authentication and access control for each and every operation the system performs.
They started out by saying "We're going to build an alternative which puts the user in control of their data." They created an alternative which puts ANY user in control of ANY data.
This is not trolling, this is an honest assessment of the progress & results of Diaspora. Their goals were more security & more privacy. They achieved neither of those goals with the code they wrote. Open source is not some magic sauce you marinate your code in in order to improve it, but suddenly the entire focus of Diaspora has gone from "it's more secure and more private," (their initial, stated goals) to "it's open source," as if that forgives the multitude of failings that the code has, simply because a bunch of people can read the source that implements those design flaws.