Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ArkOS: Building the Anti-Cloud (on a Raspberry Pi)

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the host-it-yourself dept.

Linux 166

angry tapir writes "arkOS is a Linux distribution that runs on the Raspberry Pi. It's an initiative of the CitizenWeb Project, which promotes decentralization and democratization of the Internet. arkOS is aiming to aid this effort by making it super-simple for people to host their own email, blogs, storage and other services from their own home, instead of relying on cloud services run by third parties. about the project."

cancel ×

166 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Home servers? (4, Insightful)

Professr3 (670356) | about 10 months ago | (#45032975)

I imagine Comcast will have something to say about this - something like "No more internet for you, TOS-breaker"

Re:Home servers? (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 10 months ago | (#45032987)

Not to mention committing a felony in the process.

That shit is bananas.

Re:Home servers? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#45032991)

What felony?

Re:Home servers? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033013)

Capital murder.

Re:Home servers? (5, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | about 10 months ago | (#45033037)

What's in YOUR wallet?

Re:Home servers? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 10 months ago | (#45033205)

Re: felony in the process.
Yes the ability to get admin rights or add code while the owner is away/sleeping would be tempting as part of a larger offensive military cyber capacity.
With tasks been outsourced to private security firms and "jokes" about individuals on "lists" this could get interesting:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/ex-nsa-chief-jokes-about-hunting-down-snowden-advocates-targeted-killings/ [arstechnica.com]
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-10-02/chief-dhs-privacy-officer-government-called-privacy-office-terrorists [zerohedge.com]
Maybe that ideological or privacy news related home sever makes a list too?

Re:Home servers? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033039)

So ditch Comcast?

Re:Home servers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033117)

that isn't an option is many areas

Re:Home servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033307)

Lightweight servers like these could be sweet on mesh network nodes.

Re:Home servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45034109)

that isn't an option is many areas

The Market will provide!

Re:Home servers? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45034391)

It won't for me, not because it can't, but because Comcast is granted a regional monopoly by the local government.

Re:Home servers? (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#45033253)

I imagine Comcast will have something to say about this - something like "No more internet for you, TOS-breaker"

This is true, their TOS generally forbid any services (listening ports for inbound connections) which pretty much means you can't host web servers or email servers. They actively scan for these, and contact you if they find them.

Yet, oddly they want to open a public wifi access point on every customer's cable drop so that their customers can have mobile wifi on mobile devices everywhere.

Seems sort of odd.

Re:Home servers? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 10 months ago | (#45033491)

No.

One of these things increases usage without your ISP receiving additional money

The other one increases usage with your ISP receiving additional money, without requiring them to pay for the buildout or even the electricity to actually provide the service.

Re:Home servers? (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 10 months ago | (#45033525)

the charge business extra for this privilege. If they give it away to consumers then business... especially small business will ask... "why are we paying more"... and that is why comcast etc have a hissy fit about this sort of thing.

violation of net neutrality (1, Troll)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 10 months ago | (#45033785)

Open access to the internet entails being able to offer services just as much as being able to use them. By prohibiting users to run their own services they are violating net neutrality. When is the class action suit coming?

Re:violation of net neutrality (-1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#45033857)

Don't be ridiculous.

It doesn't "violate net neutrality"; for net neutrality there is no need for just anyone to be allowed to run a server at just any connection. If you want to run your own server, get an appropriate connection for that.

And as such there is absolutely no grounds for a class action suit.

Re:violation of net neutrality (5, Informative)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#45034223)

If you want to run your own server, get an appropriate connection for that.

By "appropriate" do you mean, "one that Comcast deems appropriate" or one that is technically appropriate?

Believe it or not, there was a time, before ownership of the internet was turned over to the big telecoms, when you could host whatever kind of service you wanted on your internet connection. Back when there were these things called "ISPs" that you paid and they gave you bandwidth and that was pretty much the end of it.

Re:violation of net neutrality (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#45034279)

The amount of money you paid to those ISPs (which were for sure part of those big telecoms you love to hate so much) was definitely a lot more than what you pay now, for a lot less bandwidth. If you were in a building they happened to have a line running to. You couldn't get those connections at home.

If you want to run servers, you're likely to use a lot more bandwidth than an average user. Makes sense you have to pay for that. Ask your ISP for a business account which has fixed IP and is allowed to run servers, you'll pay more, but still it'll be a lot less than you paid back in the day.

All in all, believe it or not, we're much better off now than back then.

Re:violation of net neutrality (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#45034325)

All in all, believe it or not, we're much better off now than back then.

It depends on criteria and perspective.

Ask your ISP for a business account

You mean, "Ask your telecom for a business account", don't you? Are there still such thing as "ISPs"?

Re:violation of net neutrality (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 10 months ago | (#45034385)

Are there still such thing as "ISPs"?

There are but many home/small buisness customers are pretty much forced into using an ISP that is vertically integrated with the provider of their access connection and have very few choices (often only one) for reasonablly performing access connections. This seems to be especially a problem in the USA.

Afaict enterprise customers who pay for dedicated bandwidth can still usually choose their infrastructure and internet providers seperately in most places.

Re:violation of net neutrality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45034367)

No, we're not. And no, ISPs generally will not sell business lines to residential customers -- they'll sing you a sad song about technical limitations, but the bottom line is that they don't want to have a home user calling teir II/III support at all hours of the night. You clearly have never actually tried any of this.

Re:violation of net neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45034345)

Wow... really? There's no grounds for redress regarding draconian rules because rules are rule and shut up? That's the argument you're going with?

Re:Home servers? (3, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 10 months ago | (#45033271)

I imagine Comcast will have something to say about this - something like "No more internet for you, TOS-breaker"

Click. Click. Aaaand it's now a tor service. Because fuck you, Comcast. -_- They have a long history of screwing up people's internet. I just configure the router to pipe all traffic to a VPN, encrypt it, and call it a day. They get exactly zero bytes of unencrypted traffic. Go ahead and try and say anything about my traffic other than "It always goes from point A, to point B, and while the packets vary in length, the bandwidth usage is the same 24/7/365. Because I use QoS on my router and purposefully stuff my Torrent client full of things, even if I don't need them, just to keep the pipe full. Sortof a quiet fuck you to traffic analysis techniques. -_-

Re:Home servers? (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#45033859)

Will work fine for a few days.

After that you have reached your data limit for the month.

Re:Home servers? (2)

n0dna (939092) | about 10 months ago | (#45034091)

Comcast stop capping their customers a while ago. I still double check every time Steam has one of their holiday sales though. :)

Re:Home servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033283)

you act like it can run on comcast... it cannot. I would switch to a different ISP if I want to use it thou. I have had enough of shitty comcast.

Re:Home servers? (2)

Burz (138833) | about 10 months ago | (#45033391)

Use I2P. Then its all just encrypted P2P traffic.

Re:Home servers? (2, Insightful)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 10 months ago | (#45033451)

Ssshhh! Don't you know the first rule of i2p?

Re:Home servers? (1)

Burz (138833) | about 10 months ago | (#45033521)

Ssshhh! Don't you know the first rule of i2p?

The first rule of I2P is the more people use it, the more secure they are.

Re:Home servers? (1)

fuzzyf (1129635) | about 10 months ago | (#45033507)

If this, or anything simmilar, becomes a success then Comcast might just have to adjust their TOS :) Where I live it is fairly common to use VPN into your home network, so if they scan open ports they will find one. But it seems like they don't really care as long as you don't use it for comercial purposes. But it's not Comcast..

Re:Home servers? (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 10 months ago | (#45033765)

Which is a complete bullshit stipulation, given that "server" and "client" are really just a way of expressing which machine is initiating a connection.

In a perfect world, net neutrality would outlaw such clauses.

Also, I wish I could find the link, but do you not remember the guy who crossed out certain terms in the EULA for a product and it was determined reasonable by a court of law? Makes sense: it's not really an "agreement" unless both parties are making compromises.

The world's largest botnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033021)

Is officially under construction. Once a few of these get owned it will be quick before they're all compromised.

Re:The world's largest botnet (4, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 10 months ago | (#45033041)

Is officially under construction. Once a few of these get owned it will be quick before they're all compromised.

I agree. I mean, Linux runs the majority of web servers. Just look at THAT giant botnet. Best use MS IIS server, on Surface RT -- No one's doing that so it's far safer.

Re:The world's largest botnet (1)

tommituura (1346233) | about 10 months ago | (#45033611)

As much as I appreciate the joke, GP is right - and it has nothing to do with the OS the system is running, even though I'd wager Linux to still be more secure choice in that front. It's about who do you suppose is going to keep the system up-to-date? Following security news about the latest remote exploit in $HTTP_SERVER, or other parts of the system?

Giving a typical home computer user a "plug-and-play" server machine to host his/her own web pages at home and expecting anything like responsible and competent administration is silly. By trying to make it super simple to set up a server, they seem to be catering to the crowd that uses "password" as password, leaves their wifi just because that's the way it came from ISP, etc etc etc.

If they are trying to make their security idiot-proof, I sincerely wish them all the luck. Not holding my breath on that one though...

Re:The world's largest botnet (2, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 10 months ago | (#45033755)

Logical disconnect....because one instance, where the servers are admined by guys making high five figures on up and have had many many years of education and experience don't get pwned its the OS that deserves credit?

Bullshit. I don't care if the OS is Linux,Windows, or OS/2 Warp if you put well educated admins on them they will be safe, bad admins and they will be pwned. For what happens to Linux when it is faced with clueless users one merely has to look at Android, which passed its million infection mark over the summer, beating the time it took windows to reach that number by a good half a decade.

Moral of the story? FOSS isn't fairy dust and thinking because an OS is open magically makes it more secure is just that,magical thinking. The vast majority of infections on ANY platform are caused by PEBKAC and Linux has enjoyed many years of security by obscurity on the desktop and highly educated admins on the server. Takes those away? It gets pwned just like Windows and OSX.

Re:The world's largest botnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45034573)

You complete disregard that many eyes make all bugs shallow.

How do you know that security updates aren't automagically installed by this OS?

Home server not the fix-all (5, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#45033025)

I'm running my own server for mail, my web site, and various other little bits.

Not running from home: bandwidth is a primary issue, especially my uplink is too slow. My host has at least some 100 Mbit for me, maybe more - shared of course with many other sites but it's there for those bursts, so the few people daily that visit my site have a quick response.

Other concerns are dynamic IP (will need dynDNS, not sure how well that works), uptime, power use, hardware management... I pay some USD 350 a year for my virtual server. All in. Fixed IP, fast hardware, fast bandwidth, reliable connection - more reliable than from home with our over-sensitive RCD. More than enough for a small setup, a couple dozen mails a day, a dozen or so web site visitors a day. Not going to run that from home: more work, more cost, more trouble.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (4, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | about 10 months ago | (#45033047)

Seconded. I've run various servers for various purposes for years at home, but for the shit that just needs to work all the time with minimal fuss, paying someone else to do it is the smarter and cheaper choice.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033089)

So put your server at NSA then, like everyone else. Just don't come complaining when you get shot in the head for emailing the wrong person.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033237)

the funny thing is that on slashdot somebody will actually mod this informative

Re:Home server not the fix-all (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033295)

So put your server at NSA then, like everyone else. Just don't come complaining when you get shot in the head for emailing the wrong person.

The Government doesn't need a reason; they shoot first and rationalize later. Police especially enjoy murdering car crash victims and evading justice. God bless America!

Re:Home server not the fix-all (1, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | about 10 months ago | (#45033317)

You just have bad software.

If you had decent software, you'd be eager and happy to have a home server. Your problem after all isn't a hardware issue now is it?

So... what's the six things you'd need for you to consider this easy?

Re:Home server not the fix-all (1)

agentgonzo (1026204) | about 10 months ago | (#45033649)

I don't think his 'overly sensitive RCD' can be fixed with decent software.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (2)

isama (1537121) | about 10 months ago | (#45033063)

I've got my stuff on a "kimsufi" server at OVH. i pay less than 100$ per year, I don't even remember how much :D

Re:Home server not the fix-all (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45034155)

You only pay 100 dollars per year for bringing all your secrets to NSA ? Sounds like an excellent deal !

Re:Home server not the fix-all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033065)

A couple dozen emails a day, a dozen or so web site visitors a day for $350 per year?! You are paying way too much for such an insignificant volume of traffic, unless you expect to have spikes in usage. Or, maybe you are doing something more interesting with it. Your points are all valid, but $1 a day seems too expensive.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (2)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#45033289)

You could host your own website or blog on your home service and never miss the bandwidth.
So assuming you weren't going to disconnect your home Internet, all for the price of zero dollars per year.
You could host your family photos an pithy blog on a wall wart sized appliance.

Till your ISP steps in. Too many ISPs forbid this for no rational reason.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (2)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about 10 months ago | (#45033477)

Till your ISP steps in. Too many ISPs forbid this for no rational reason.

It's because blocking/forbidding it means they don't have to spend money having their IT staff help anyone running into difficulties hosting things. It's much easier for them if everyone obediently consumes.

It's also because they can -- far too few tech-oriented people consider it more important to have an ultra-fast connection than it is to be able to use it as they see fit. I feel the *minor* inconvenience of slower speeds on DSL is worth knowing my ISP lets me do what I wish (even if I don't use it much) and doesn't have a bandwidth cap, participate in the RIAA/MPAA schemes or do similar obnoxious crap. It's not like the minor extra time needed to download a Linux distro (or whatever) has a real impact on my life...

Re:Home server not the fix-all (1)

xaxa (988988) | about 10 months ago | (#45033833)

Too many ISPs forbid this for no rational reason.

Can they not be convinced?

My ISP (Plusnet) is a division of the old state monopoly (BT), and they even have a page on how to set up a home email server: http://www.plus.net/support/email/smtp_mail.shtml [plus.net]

I don't run a home email server -- it's too much effort to filter spam -- but there's been a web server running on port 80 for the past year. My mum has another web server in her house (for family photos), with a competing ISP (o2?) and that's been running for almost 10 years.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#45033893)

At home i'd have to pay the electricity for a server that's up all the time, and maybe buy a separate computer for it.

Also it allows me to acces my mail and files from just about anywhere, at high speed, without worries. My uplink from home is simply too slow - also an issue for web visitors, this way their pages load much faster.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033139)

Not running from home: bandwidth is a primary issue, especially my uplink is too slow.

Agreed. My uplink has too much latency and is too flaky to run a home server, especially when downtime happens every few weeks and can last for hours at a time. The cloud is cheap and reliable by comparison.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033159)

I run a home-based website. Dynamic IPs aren't a problem. First, if you're always connected your IP almost never changes. Second, routers with updated firmware (like DD-WRT) can update your dnyDNS provider automatically. I use dyn.com (I'm not sure if you can still sign up for their free service).

The main problem with self-hosting will be your ISP. You may or may not have to change your website's port every once-in-a-while to get around blocking. In addition, many consumer IPs are blocked by stupid net filtering software. Other than that, it's nice having everything completely under my control. The website runs off an old laptop I wasn't using. There's no dynamic content, so CPU power isn't an issue. My server runs Hiawatha (discovered from the Puppy Linux community, thanks guys) which is easier to setup than Apache.

Re: RCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033301)

Posting since I'm sure nobody else has heard of an RCD [wikipedia.org] either.

Re: Home server not the fix-all (1)

sevenisloud (1688814) | about 10 months ago | (#45033503)

I know none of this will help you sir, but I wanted to address some of these concerns for people in the UK, like me. I've been running a home server for a while now (and recently switched to a Raspberry Pi, mostly for the power savings). Anyway... For your Internet connection, I highly recommend Plusnet's fibre broadband, if you're lucky enough to live in an area where it's available. For £20/month (plus line rental) I get around 20mbps upstream. I've had their fibre broadband for about 6 months now without any downtime. They have no issues with me running a server, and offer a static ip for a one-of setup fee of £5 (which they say will make it easier to host your own website, etc, thus taking care of any worries about falling foul of their tos). Their sister company just-the-name will sell you a .co.uk domain for £9/2 years. In case you wonder, no I don't work for them, I'm just very impressed by their service.

Re: Home server not the fix-all (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#45033543)

Thanks, not living in UK. Would have two decades ago though... it's one of your former colonies. Now part of China.

To make matters worse, at my home only ADSL available. No fibre.

Re: Home server not the fix-all (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 10 months ago | (#45034583)

But, why an RPi? It's a painfully low end piece of hardware. At least get something like a BeagleBone or one of the A10 boards. They've got the same power envelope, trading graphics that you won't use for a better CPU, more memory, better interconnects, and they don't cost significantly more.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 10 months ago | (#45033517)

more reliable than from home with our over-sensitive RCD.

RCDs are rarely over sensitive. They have a pre-defined trip point and a pre-defined trip time. Odds are far greater that you have some gear somewhere in your house that is leaking current into the earth and that you're already very close to the trip point. If you have an old fridge or oven I would look there first. Pool pumps or any other electro-magnetic devices are good culprits too.

Nothing to do with home servers, just some advice of where you may start looking for a potential problem. If it is the RCD, get it tested and replaced.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#45033575)

Most of our electronics are reasonably new. Our old washing machine used to be a real issue, we have a new one now. Fridge maybe a decade old, no more. Really I've been searching a few times really hard when the problem occurred: power would go down all of a sudden, and just wouldn't go on again. Once I had to switch off all power groups, switch them on one by one, finally find out there are two that each would trip the breaker. That's strange, you'd expect one. Anyway in the end I never found the culprit. Narrow it down to a single group: unplug everything, connect power, plug it all in one by one to see which device causes problems: and then nothing happens?!

Most recent was a few trips due to the rice cooker not being dry enough after a thorough washing. Took two days, now it's fine again :-) But had to walk down to reset the power a few times. That makes sense.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 10 months ago | (#45033973)

It may be a slight intermittent fault pushing you over the edge. If you have a friend who's an electrician or EE see if he can bring over a clampmeter and clamp around both the active and neutral cables going through your RCD. Both at the same time will give you a measure of earth leakage.

It's common for some devices to leak. In our case we had a dodgy beer fridge leaking ~30mA and our RCD tripped at 40mA (country standard, not sure how things work were you life). Turns out there was an ants nest amidst all the wiring inside the fridge. The fault was never enough to diagnose by turning things off and on but I found it when measuring the leakage current while turning things off and on.

Something to consider if the outages are causing any problems.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#45034001)

Will see, it's been a while that we had a spontaneous cut. Usually can just switch it on and everything is fine.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45034073)

Here in teh Netherlands a 100/100 mBit fibre connection costs you 60 euros a month. My Arch Linux Atom server has been running stable for 5 years now. No way you come off cheaper than me.

Re:Home server not the fix-all (2)

aurb (674003) | about 10 months ago | (#45034115)

Colocation for Raspberry Pi? I'm sure there are services like that.

backups? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033031)

Does it include super-simple backup software, or does your personal anti-cloud go *poof!* when the hardware fails?

Re:backups? (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about 10 months ago | (#45033147)

A usb stick or connected RAID 1 mirrored enclose would allow you to keep your data backed up?
New server, check your data and your back online.

Re:backups? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033173)

Does it include super-simple backup software, or does your personal anti-cloud go *poof!* when the hardware fails?

That's why they call it the anti-cloud, it has none of the cloud benefits.

Re:backups? (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about 10 months ago | (#45033227)

Really depends on what cloud you bought into. Many will offer cpu and bandwidth but as some users have found out other expected benefits may be expensive or lacking.

Why stop with the infrastructure? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033093)

We could decentralize and democratize the protocol standards as well.

All those features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033101)

...and still no decentralized search engine. I wonder if projects like Yacy will ever take off?

There will be lots (1)

DrPBacon (3044515) | about 10 months ago | (#45033141)

Dr P Linux will hopefully be out by the end of the year ... :)

Three words: Network Address Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033167)

Too many people these days live behind NATs, and that basically prevents any initiative like this from taking off. Perhaps the day IPv6 becomes common may see this actually work reasonably.

Re:Three words: Network Address Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033437)

Eh? Wtf?

My blog is hosted on my home lAN. It is behind a NAT router/firewall. All you do is setup port forwarding. Most routers these days can do this very easily.

My ISP (not comcast) even has instructions on its website about how to do it. You don't need IPv6 for this.

btw, I've been running this for more than 10 years with several different ISP's. We have a choice if ISP's in most areas over here in Blighty. Nice to see us ahead of you Yanks for a change.
Many ISP's will also even let you have a static IP address. Neat eh?

Re:Three words: Network Address Translation (1)

Arashi256 (1804688) | about 10 months ago | (#45033821)

Yup, this is exactly what I do. I'm with Be (now part of Sky) and I get a static IP address for £20 pm. The BeBox (router) has all the capabilities for port forwarding although I found the interface to be dumbed down for firewall configuration which actually made it harder to set up for me :) Been running a CentOS server for all sorts of things for 5 years with no hassles from the ISP.

Why not decentralized the network too? (3, Interesting)

Burz (138833) | about 10 months ago | (#45033177)

It should come with I2P like TAILS does:

I2P-Bote: Decentralized / anonymized email based on DHT

Tahoe-LAFS on I2P: Decentralized and anonymous file storage

Syndie on I2P: Decentralized and anon blog

and

I2P itself: A general replacement for IP. Like a cross between Tor and bittorrent, where everyone is expected to contibute to bandwidth and so reduce the centralization (and opportunity for attacks) as much as possible and expand the approved uses to anything (instead of just web browsing).

Take away the centralized power of the ISP and government to monitor and control every aspect of your online life.

Re:Why not decentralized the network too? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033213)

Take away the centralized power of the ISP and government to monitor and control every aspect of your online life.

The government and the corporations are controlling everyone! Seriously who gives a fuck, its the internet, what are you doing on it that youre so desperate to keep secret and hidden? In the end all you are battling is information freedom and that is a battle you will ultimately lose, you are communicating with the outside world and frankly if you think you can keep that private youre just a naive idiot.

Re:Why not decentralized the network too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033381)

what are you doing on it that youre so desperate to keep secret and hidden?

Conducting part of my life... that's what I'm doing. Punk.

You can't understand why people would not want to be analyzed and known by plutocrats and police-state minions better than they know themselves?

In the end all you are battling is information freedom and that is a battle you will ultimately lose, you are communicating with the outside world and frankly if you think you can keep that private youre just a naive idiot.

Um, no... It's you who is the naive idiot if you think the asymmetric collection of personal information spells "freedom". You sound like a typical American stooge who will spew the word "freedom" all over the place as long as he's still got a choice between Coke and Pepsi.

Re:Why not decentralized the network too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033655)

You can't understand why people would not want to be analyzed and known by plutocrats and police-state minions better than they know themselves?

if they can know you better than you know yourself based on that information then you have some serious problems. if they can glean that much information on you from you internet usage then youre just a sad cunt that needs to get a real life. but if you really truly oppose this then what are you doing about it?

Um, no... It's you who is the naive idiot if you think the asymmetric collection of personal information spells "freedom".

no im not naive at all, i know exactly what they may collect so anything i wouldnt want them to collect im hardly going to put in their hands now am i. people like you are the biggest part of your percieved problem, no matter how bad you pretend things are you wont actually do anything meaningful about it anyway thus diminishing the value of your opinion.

You sound like a typical American stooge who will spew the word "freedom" all over the place as long as he's still got a choice between Coke and Pepsi.

no

Re:Why not decentralized the network too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45034211)

Giving up is easy. Now, if you truly knew the stakes here, I think you would quickly revert your opinion.
There's no reason why The King's Advisor should know everything there is to know about everyone, including The King himself.
There's no reason to hand over all information, and thus power.
Do you truly know the stakes here?

Re:Why not decentralized the network too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45034207)

Why not decentralized

Just a FYI (since you don't appear to be a native English speaker), you are confusing the present tense with past tense. The phrase you are looking for is "why not decentralize" (no "d").

If you ARE a native English speaker, then God help us all.

No offense, but had to laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033211)

What a fascinating idea. Anyone remember FrontPage Express??? :-D

Re:No offense, but had to laugh (1)

game kid (805301) | about 10 months ago | (#45033545)

...or PWS [wikipedia.org] ?

Good idea- difficult to implement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033215)

Depending on what it is doing one of the issues your going to have is bandwidth and latency problems. Up-time is also a problem. It is highly unlikely you can keep up a home server with any kind of reasonable up-time. Lets assume these problems can be solved though. Maybe you fall back to a non-home server for email as an example and you work around the filtering issues by way of VPN. Then you might have a slightly better solution.

Last problem I have with this solution is the Raspberry Pi. It's crap. Both from a reliability and quality perspective. However I'd also be concerned because it is not free software friendly by a long shot. To even boot the system your dependent on non-free graphics.

There is also the freedombox. I don't know how much of a better job they do or if they've done any better. However I'd probably look into it first.

Re:Good idea- difficult to implement (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45033259)

The graphics firmware blob and driver module are the only non-free pieces of code in there. The rest of the software is all open-source, and even the schematics (Though not the multi-layered PCB layout) have been published. Very useful schematics too - they show you which polyfuse needs briging if you want any hope of powering a USB hard drive.

Re:Good idea- difficult to implement (1)

m.alessandrini (1587467) | about 10 months ago | (#45033277)

And OSs like this are not tied to a particular hardware. If ported to another platform, probably all you need is copying the home and etc folders.

Re:Good idea- difficult to implement (3, Informative)

fezzzz (1774514) | about 10 months ago | (#45033305)

I recently bought a raspberry Pi with the idea of hosting a web server from home using a Huawei Dongle and the cell phone network. Due to the power wastage, I didn't think it a good idea to use my regular PC for the job.

First you obviously need to get the Huawei Dongle working with wvdial or something similar. This took me perhaps a week.

Then you need to contact your cell phone service provider and ask for an unrestricted APN otherwise they block all connections to your dongle. This took some paperwork, but I managed to get it done.

Once incoming connections are allowed, you can start hosting your website. The first proper request to my website activated the dongle's maximum power usage and this resulted in a power brown-out and the PI crashed. After upping the power supply from 700 mA to 1000 mA, this problem was solved.

NOIP and dyndns solved my dns problems easily.

The last problem I haven't solved yet is routing to my Pi with the cell phone networks. About 10% of the time, it finds a route, but the rest of the time it only finds the IP address. I will buy another sim card and see if it improves my situation, but in the mean time I've resorted to Amazon's cloud offering.

Re:Good idea- difficult to implement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033835)

I needed to operate a wheeled rover from great distance once.

I also used Raspberry Pi for the mainboard, but I didn't use an USB dongle but a separately powered 3G router (to which I soldered a high-gain external 3G antenna). This way, I could have better performance and reliability, but it did end up drawing more power.

Fortunately, one of the local GSM networks gives you a public IP address with no blocking whatsoever. No paperwork, since they also give the same to prepaid SIM cards.

Great idea, unfortunately... (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 10 months ago | (#45033281)

Until there's widespread FTTP (GPON or AON) it will be more pain than it's worth.

I have run a Linux server for years with just these services on ADSL & ADSL2. Mail is fine, even a Jabber server is fine, even private file hosting is ok, if a bit slow, but once you start hosting websites your ability to actually use your own Internet when you're home is diminished.

I was hoping that the National Broadband Network (NBN) would stay 93% FTTP here in Australia, but unfortunately with the change in government that's looking less & less likely.

Seems like the percloud, just (1)

M. Fioretti (3230131) | about 10 months ago | (#45033329)

Can't believe I only discovered this project today, when it's been running, it seems, for at least 6 months. Anyway, it seems very similar to what I just proposed, the percloud http:per-cloud.com [per-cloud.com] With the difference, if I'm not mistaken, that the percloud would be an easier to use, preconfigured, locked down version of arkOS. Am I right?

Not a home server, but... (1)

fuzzyf (1129635) | about 10 months ago | (#45033679)

I've been thinking about setting up a home server for some time now, but then I took a step back and think about what I really wanted to achieve. What I really would like (I'm not on facebook) is a simple way to share information with my family (who lives all over the country) and friends. And I'd prefer it not be hosted on the internet or with a company that makes money of my information.

Just a simple way to share information with a select few people.
A full fledge home server would be overkill, and it would have to serve as a host to others in my family also. That would be too much work. But a raspberry pi in each home, working as something inbetween a home server and just a vpn with some bells and whistles might do the trick.

Maybe it's time to start coding something at home again :)

Re:Not a home server, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45034113)

Indeed ! We can either write all of our secrets over to Mr Zuckerberg, Mr Brin, NSA and CIA, or we spend 50 dollars on an RPI and a less than 25*5 Watts == 0,125 kWh per day on privacy and freedom.

Of course Google/NSA/book will pay hundreds if not thousands of Propaganda Operatives to badmouth the Little Guy Server At Home. They will be highly creative in telling you why the 1% need to know everything about you, in case you question their corrupt dealings (e.g. that ridiculous 1 trillion dollar coin or the next war they badly need).

You don't need to do lots of your own programming - there are quite a few rock-solid and secure , Free Open Source web servers out there. What you need to do is to learn how to properly set up and run stuff.

Your local Hacker Space or your Linux User Group will assist you. If you are capable of running *BSD, do that as it increases diversity and potentially frustrates their efforts to subvert FOSS, too.

Re:Not a home server, but... (1)

fuzzyf (1129635) | about 10 months ago | (#45034421)

I'm capable to both configure and run a server, but as I see it this should be solved in a different way than just run a full home server. I wouldn't want to run a server for everyone, and most people can't do it themselves. So it would need to be something a bit simpler.

Keeping it simple enough that enyone could just plug a device like this into their network and have everything just work.
Preferably without too much framework software. Running gigabytes of software to do something this simple is just a security risk.

But as you say, If something like this became successfull it would be a target for google, facebook and quite a few other companies.

btw:
I'm a professional developer and I run Gentoo as my main OS on my laptop :)

About time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45033909)

Looks like a brilliant project -- lots of people have talked about doing this for a while, great to see it being done.

Some features we talked about in the pub that would be useful to have:
  -- distributed, trust-based automatic backups, all your stuff mirrored on your real-world freinds' similar boxes and vice versa
  -- own diaposra pod set up by default, and set up to mirror your and your friends' stuff as above
  -- personal web page and wiki set up by default
  -- Yacy open source distrubted search engine running by default
  -- some clever way to redirect your website, wiki and emails to friend's servers when your Pi is down

anyone know how far ArkOS has got with these ?

Google already says no. (4, Insightful)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 10 months ago | (#45034029)

The TOS for Google Fiber says NO SERVERS... at all. Kind of lame when you consider they initially called Google Fiber an experiment to see what people would do with all that bandwidth. This sounds ideal. Google Fiber will be available to me very soon, but I may just have to pass it up. I don't like that they have already drastically changed the game by excluding servers.

Re:Google already says no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45034129)

See what I mean ? The 1% want to control as many servers (==plaintext) as they can. Google is fully evil by now.

Captcha: untrue. Dear SD, you kindly respond to my arguments, if you like. Maybe you start to "explain" that book by Schmitt and Cohen, how they want to control the world by means of Google/Gmail-gathered signals intelligence.

Re:Google already says no. (1)

fuzzyf (1129635) | about 10 months ago | (#45034429)

How do they define "server"?
It is any open port? even VPN into your router?

"about the project" (1)

Hougaard (163563) | about 10 months ago | (#45034149)

Great copy paste job boys :)

Re:"about the project" (1)

CoolGopher (142933) | about 10 months ago | (#45034231)

I've got a really cool idea! We should totally get slashdot to get someone to read and tidy up the posts before they're well posted. You know, edit them to make them more readable. We could even give those people a title, say, "editor"....

not a new concept.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45034251)

even in an easy-to-use setup...

The (no longer developed and EOLd) 602 LAN Suite for Windows did pretty much all that, and more, a decade ago... it was kinda ahead of its time, I guess, and there really hasn't been anything available that's truly comparable, since it was dropped by its developer.

Net neutrality (5, Insightful)

ortholattice (175065) | about 10 months ago | (#45034301)

To me, it seems that providers that prohibit home servers (either by TOS or by actually blocking e.g. port 80) are in violation of FCC-10-201 (net neutrality).

This was brought up before on Slashdot http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/07/30/2322253/google-argues-against-net-neutrality [slashdot.org] with specific reference to Google Fiber's TOS prohibition of incoming ports. The complaint is described in http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf [cloudsession.com] . I wish someone would pursue this against all major providers, not just Google Fiber.

There is simply no valid reason to prohibit incoming ports. This issue is not bandwidth - most home servers use far less than say streaming video. In any case if it's abused, the providers can use their existing procedures to deal with bandwidth abusers.

This is really at the heart of network neutrality. The only reason I can see for prohibiting incoming ports is to prevent individuals from competing with commercial interests that provide network services. Personally, it really PO's me that my ISP blocks ports 80 and 443. I keep my files on a home server, and although I can access them via ssh, many public wifi services (e.g. at hospitals) block every port, in and out, except 80 and 443. I can't really complain about the public wifi (well, I can complain, but they'll just tell me that it's a free courtesy they're under no obligation to provide, so if you don't like it, don't use it). So, to access my personal files, I need to use a 3rd party's commercial server (cloud or VPN) that allows port 80.

(As for the dynamic DNS, that hasn't been a serious problem for me - my ISP keeps it fixed as long as my cable modem is powered and connected, and the IP only changes when I restart the cable modem. Anyway, that is a secondary and minor problem.)

This is amazing! (1)

kenh (9056) | about 10 months ago | (#45034497)

You mean I can run a server out of my home?! That's amazing!

How is this easier than spinning up a TurnkeyLinux [turnkeylinux.org] appliance on an old Pentium 4 (or better) desktop you can get for free in almost any part of the country?

Let's see - I need to buy the RaspberryPi, a case, and a power brick at a (practical) minimum, which puts the system in the $75+ range - compared to a repurposed desktop that will cost around $0. Of course, the difference is in the monthly power bill - the old Pentium 4 desktop will use much more power. You could avoid that expense by running your appliances under, say, VirtualBox [oracle.com] if you normally keep your desktop on 24x7....

Oh yeah, the TOS of most ISPs would preclude any server type work on a residential account, at least that is the case here in the US.

Re:This is amazing! (1)

fuzzyf (1129635) | about 10 months ago | (#45034555)

Don't be so negative about someone trying to get more people to run a linux installation.
Most people would never get a Pentium 4 for free and then start installing and configuring a webserver on it
But buying a ready configured Raspberry Pi and pluggin it in.. that is doable for many.

The obvious benefints are less noise, power usage, space needed and the ability to hide it behind the TV.
But don't underestimate the amount of PR a project like this could get.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>