Talk:Diaspora (software)

Amusing Notation About the NYT Diaspora* Article

I really don't think it has a place in the article, but I'll stick it here for reference: amusingly enough, the Village Voice picked up a blogger's amused noting that the original Times photo had a dirty Unix joke in it which was cropped out of the online article photo, but made it into print. On the upper lefthand corner of the chalkboard, there's written in chalk: "TOUCH GREP UNZIP MOUNT FSCK FSCK FSCK UMOUNT" -- which is pretty much supposed to be what it sounds like. WCityMike 21:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

cnn article

• Meet Diaspora, the 'anti-Facebook' May 12, 2010, SciTechBlog So far, about 900 people have contributed a total of nearly $29,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.83.223 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Opera Unite

Shouldn't this article mention Opera Unite? As clearly this is where Diaspora has gotten it's ideas from... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless there has been something published elsewhere describing this inspiration, that would be WP:OR. Further, decentralization wasn't original to Opera Unite, and Diaspora runs on user-operated servers whereas Opera Unite runs on the user's local workstation in their browser. If anything, StatusNet would be a more likely inspiration. Elehack (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Paid hosting service

Could someone expand on the above detail mentioned toward the end of the article? I didn't see anything more about it following the citations 76.119.237.74 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been any additional detail on the paid hosting service. They plan to set up the paid hosting service after they've got Diaspora running, so they presumably haven't even begun that part of things yet. WCityMike 22:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

From the citations it is not possible to evince that the guys are going to offer a PAID hosting service. They refer to the Wordpress model of blog hosting, which consists in some "toll-free" services and paid additional pro services. --Japs 88 (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

a custom instant messaging protocol

Ummm, I dont mean to add a comment here & have it sounds less than perfectly above-board, helpful, supportive, productive, et cetera, but .... this sounds stupid! XMPP simply must be the protocol of choice. Period. Anything else is a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjobeck (talk • contribs) 18:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to debate the diaspora team's choices. If you want to propose that they use XMPP you can contact them directly. You can find their email addresses on their website. Thomas Maroulis (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

vapour ware

This article should be deleted and perhaps a mention made on the vapour ware page instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.80.164.230 (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, perhaps not deleted but I have added info indicating that it may be vaporware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.175.225 (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really sure I understand. The source cited doesn't mention anything about vapourware; it criticizes the name and the anti-Facebook movement, but I didn't read anything suggesting it would never be finished. The first release is scheduled for September; until then, we shouldn't be expecting to see any code. The developers have been blogging about the project - perhaps not daily updates, but often enough for me. If you know something we don't, please share it. --209.195.66.14 (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

An article criticizing the name of the service hardly qualifies as an adequate source for a claim that Diaspora is vaporware. It was clear from the very first announcement on Kickstarter that the project would be due around September. With still a month prior to the expected completion date, the author of the first comment would seem to hold a rather strong resentment against this project. PureEminences (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A note should probably be in there somewhere though, the current article makes it sound like a current, running service. As it stands, there's very little users, and the non-tech public doesn't appear to know much about it. 49.193.208.5 (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this can't be counted as vapourware now. The code is up and hosted regardless the number of users. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Diagram

Can someone find a diagram of how Diaspora is different from Facebook, in architecture ? --78.141.134.3 (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Name

Diaspora* appears to be the correct name; the NYT and the devs use Diaspora* as do many other sources. I'd argue Diaspora is the alternate. Maybe a move to Diaspora* is appropriate? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The website still says "Diaspora". I think the asterisk is just a stylization, not the official name. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It is now. There are two official spellings: diaspora* and DIASPORA*, both including the asterisk.(see Branding) Changed it in the article accordingly. --Waithamai 01:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I changed it back. We don't use brand-type stylings here, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. - Ahunt (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Includes protocol or just GPL software?

Does Diaspora includes standards in order to be compatible with other social networks (which would make it something like a "protocol") or is it just another software (with is published under the GPL)?

I think that this should be explained in the introduction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.106.133.175 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Diaspora has its own federation protocol which is based on HTTP and therefore ugly. However, there are plans to move to XMPP for federation, making Diaspora potentionally compatible with other software. -- 62.156.42.227 (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Userbox

Editors who use Diaspora can add this userbox to their user page, if desired:

Code	Result
{{User:Ahunt/Diaspora}}	*This user is on Diaspora.	Usage

- Ahunt (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

draft for release history section to be included later

Release history

Version	Release date	Significant changes
Developer Preview	September 15, 2010
Alpha Release	November 24, 2010	Security fixes

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitzl (talk • contribs)

References

Merge

I can never find the templates for these things (got there in the end), but the articles diaspora (software) and diaspora (social network) are almost identical, and are likely to remain so, so the link for one should point to the other Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that these should be merged. One article is about the on-line community and the other is about the software that powers it. Both are already substantial articles with different content and even if merged would soon require splitting anyway due to length and the large amount of press attention both are getting. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should make Diaspora (social network) the main article but include a section about the main parts of diaspora software. We can still keep Diaspora (software) though for additional and more detailed information about the software. Would that be workable solution? --spitzl (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good solution. Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That suggestion is essentially to add more text on the software to this article. That can be done, as long as it doesn't overlap the other article too much. It could be added as a section with a "Main" tag. No need for this merger discussion to conclude to do that, though. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the social network article is about the software anyway - either the features or the impact. The software *is* the social network. So, yeh, support merge. But the social network article needs a good clean in the process - it's quite badly written (informal & crammed together). --Errant ^(chat!) 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

On flicking through further, yeh, these are basically identical articles and need merging. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it has been seven days since this issue was brought up and looking at the opinions above it is pretty clear that there is no consensus at this point in time. I will therefore remove the merge templates. I think we should probably revisit this issue in six months or a year and see how the two articles overlap at that time or whether they have become more separate. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've started some work to re-focus the two articles, then. One onto the social/foundation side and one onto the software. I suspect we would be better moving some of the "features" detail over here. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me and looks good so far! - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To me, it seems that these articles are mostly identical, with the most significant difference being that they describe the same things in slightly different words. Now that Diaspora (software) is a main article corresponding to a section of Diaspora (social network), I suggest that Diaspora (software) be merged into that section and all duplicate information be removed. -- 62.156.42.227 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I did state above that I would be fine with keeping both articles as long as one of them is the main article. But having put in a second thought I now favor merging them. It is simply less confusing for most readers. --spitzl (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the release history needed?

Should the release history be removed as it will in the long term future just make the article really long and dwarf all the actual relevant information. The release history and complete changelogs for diaspora* (post-community rule) is on GitHub. Jaywink (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it is okay right now as long as we stick to just the highlights and avoid WP:NOTCHANGELOG. If it does get too big it can always be split into a new article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Centred Explanation

There's too much explanation about the history but very little about what it is, what it delivers, how it works, how you use it, what is it for (with more precision than "socializing",... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.166.138 (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

All we need are references to add this. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata integration

I started to change and insert properties to info boxes instead of release version and latest release date. You can change version and date at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q251649

Importing

A key part of the Diaspora software design concept is that it should act as a "social aggregator", allowing posts to be easily imported from Facebook, Tumblr and Twitter. As Village Voice writer Nick Pinto explained, "the idea is that this lowers the barriers to joining the network, and as more of your friends join, you no longer need to bounce communications through Facebook. Instead, you can communicate directly, securely, and without running exchanges past the prying eyes of Zuckerberg and his business associates.

The article says that. But Diaspora* can't really import anything from Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook. The only way it has is the opposite one, see: https://wiki.diasporafoundation.org/Integrating_other_social_networks . Also, the reference to this section ( http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-02-15/news/the-facebook-killers/3/ ) I quoted above is DEAD. Am I wrong, or could this false section be removed?--200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The ref link works fine for me! I think that this was an intention that has not been completed, so it should be qualified, not removed. I'll add some words to that effect. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I checked again, the URL is blocked on my network, nothing more. Thanks for fixing the way it was written, this already solves the problem.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that, on the Diaspora* Github, the API is still struggling to begin being developed... https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora/labels/api --200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That would explain the lack of functionality. Post back here if there is any progress on this that you see. - Ahunt (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diaspora (software). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206042623/http://blog.diasporafoundation.org/2012/02/03/diaspora-grows-up.html to http://blog.diasporafoundation.org/2012/02/03/diaspora-grows-up.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120830214049/http://blog.diasporafoundation.org/2012/08/27/announcement-diaspora-will-now-be-a-community-project.html to http://blog.diasporafoundation.org/2012/08/27/announcement-diaspora-will-now-be-a-community-project.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 13:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Diaspora (software). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219221613/http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-02-15/news/the-facebook-killers/3/ to http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-02-15/news/the-facebook-killers/3/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222020913/http://blog.joindiaspora.com/2010/11/23/private-alpha-released.html to http://blog.joindiaspora.com/2010/11/23/private-alpha-released.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126232042/http://blog.joindiaspora.com/project.html to http://blog.joindiaspora.com/project.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021212024/http://devblog.joindiaspora.com/2012/10/18/open-call-for-packagers/ to http://devblog.joindiaspora.com/2012/10/18/open-call-for-packagers/

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) 05:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)