[WLANware] Freifunk Gui to conqueer the world

Fri Jun 16 07:28:24 CEST 2006

Dan,

good points - thanks for your 2 cents. I personally do not want to compete 
with anyone If FON supports meshing and does it in a technical compatible 
way - I think they're welcome. If (and only if) that devices forward traffic 
_without_ blocking / censoring / digigtal robbery -> PicoPeer.

Captive portals are the technical vehicle to censor interet access. Yes - 
I'am aware of the fact, that some control over this resource is normally 
necessary. An internet gateway offerer has potential power over others. 
He/She can censor. He/She can change content. He/She can block content. 
He/She has a technical way to push content. He/She can fetch passwords. Side 
effect of not using End-to-End encryption/IPSec while browsing. TANSTAAFL. 
Refer to recent discussions about net-neutrality. For this reason, such 
things should to too easy for Joe Average to configure IMO.

I wasn't aware, that offering inet access is prohibited / heavy regulated in 
some countries in a way you described. Maybe we can combine digital robbery 
with captive portals with some useful things. Maybe funding for the inet gw 
offerer (e.g. change every Google AdSense links to own account or so). And 
yes - any [Accept] button should mention this.

Dunno yet, when I can find some time to do it - to make it easy, add 
translation, popup help etc. Same as for PortFW. PortFW is really useful, 
ACKed - this is a Good Thing (TM).

HTH Sven-Ola

""Dan Flett"" <conhoolio at hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:BAY114-F97E5A24B6E0B3A69A77CEAF830 at phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
>
> Michael makes a couple of good points.  Freifunk-style mesh networks have
> the advantage of being governed by people from the area the network is 
> in -
> FON is controlled by a corporation from another country.  FON is a
> benevolent dictatorship - so far so good - I've been reading their blogs 
> and
> they express an interest in OLSR meshing, so in future FON may even be
> interoperable with local free community networks.  Better to cooperate to
> share radio spectrum than to compete and interfere with each other.
>
> Port-forwarding in the GUI would be handy for those who want to run 
> servers
> "behind" their mesh router, rather than expose it directly to the network.
> Encouraging node-owners to provide services to the network makes the 
> network
> more attractive, which in turn helps the network grow.  Which is a Good
> Thing (TM).
>
> Here in Australia, there is some pretty opressive government regulation
> surrounding the distribution of Internet access across an unlicenced
> network.  So while we are free to create a city-wide Intranet, providing
> Internet access across that network is a legal problem.  I believe the
> problem would be reduced by putting a captive portal on the gateway -
> authentication and accounting for Internet access would be more likely to
> keep the authorities happy.  A captive portal is also important as a 
> Public
> Relations exercise: it enables random strangers to find out about the
> network, which encourages further participation.  You could even use the
> splash page to sell more Freifunk boxes to help grow the network! :)
>
> To encourage fast network growth, the network should be "sticky" - those 
> who
> come into contact with it should be so impressed by it that they want to
> keep using it and want to help it grow.  Making it easy and cheap to use,
> and build, will help it grow as fast as possible.
>
> We at Melbourne Wireless have been working on our own small captive portal
> Internet gateway package.
>
> You can get the source code and OpenWRT mipsel ipk package here:
> http://www.melbournewireless.org.au/files/wrt54/Packages/
>
> It is called MWHotspot.  Anyone interested in using/testing/developing it
> should email me.  It authenticates against the Melbourne Wireless 
> membership
> database, but could easily be adapted for other groups.
>
> And I agree, having to reboot the box isn't a big problem for me. 
> Friefunk
> boxes, like all routers, spend 99.9% of their time unattended, doing their
> job and 0.1% of their time being configured.  Once they are configured, 
> they
> can be left alone, so I don't see the necessity to reboot as being a real
> issue.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>>no need to conquer something. FON is for sharing a private internet access
>>with other privates (accepting the FON-terms-of-trade to overcome own
>>dumbness in configuring such a thing), Freifunk is for city wide meshing.
>>Different audience. Yes - there is some congruence of course.
>>
>>- PortFW: Dunno if I can grab that. Need to ask the author and make a
>>   translatable ipk out of it. Normally same workload as re-writing that
>>stuff.
>>   Not this month.
>>
>>- Who needs wifidog in an unencrypted free mesh environment? You can
>>    use iptables and fetch a copy of the freifunk-gateway-??.ipk for a
>>config
>>    sample to get the 404-extra-httpd going (additional
>>"S:cgi-bin-mystuff.htm"
>>    in the busybox httpd.config file). Yes - that is not drag-n-drop.
>>
>>- And: I am very lazy. Restart is necessary because reconfiguration 
>>without
>>   restarts costs me a lot of devel time but saves only 5 mins. per 
>> average
>>user
>>   for his/her config experience. I like to get things going, but need to
>>optimize
>>   my time ressources always. So that's prio #99 (there are 98 other 
>> things
>>on
>>   the todo).
>>
>>HTH Sven-Ola
>>
>>""michel memeteau"" <michel.memeteau at gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:c7fe8b8c0606150154k5d0f85dds327149d493babdba at mail.gmail.com...
>>Hi , I'm from http://wireless-fr.org  France meeting point for free wifi
>>networks ,
>>
>>Two things are keeping freifunk from spreading over FON and other
>>commercial
>>initiative :
>>
>>
>>It miss the port forwarding GUI  (
>>https://wiki.funkfeuer.at/index.php?title=Port-Forwarding_unter_FreiFunk 
>>is
>>working on )
>>No integréted GUI to configure Wifidog ( we are working on
>>http://forum.wireless-fr.org/viewtopic.php?pid=64#p64 )
>>
>>We need to restart for each changes ( can't we avoid that as in Webif ? )
>>
>>I think PPPOE should ne intégrated by default ....
>>
>>How can we work all together to make this in the next freifunk release or
>>at
>>least make the ipks together and add them to the main tree ? We want to
>>help
>>and I want to give a functionnal alternative to those FON guys .....
>>
>>Cheers all ...
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------->%
>>Michel memeteau
>>sip:17476005010 at proxy01.sipphone.com
>>0491886375 0624808051
>>jabber : freechelmi at jabber.fr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WLANware mailing list
>>WLANware at freifunk.net
>>https://freifunk.net/mailman/listinfo/wlanware
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WLANware mailing list
>>WLANware at freifunk.net
>>https://freifunk.net/mailman/listinfo/wlanware
>
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
WLANware mailing list
WLANware at freifunk.net
https://freifunk.net/mailman/listinfo/wlanware