[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Forum Update 17-apr-2001

From: Barry Fitzgerald
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Forum Update 17-apr-2001
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:27:09 -0400

Silvernerd wrote:
> Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
> >
> > Also, the idea is a blacklist is a good one - also, you could have a
> > whitelist (approved plugins) that give no warnings and a grey list that
> > are plugins that are not even reviewed.  This I think is firmly within
> > your grasp. :)
> Maybe we could do this for webservices too, a whitelist for webservices
> known to be using open protocols and systems and a blacklist for
> webservices that use closed protocols and systems. These lists would
> then make up a DotGNU webservice directory. We could also split the
> lists into different sections. For example a Free Software section and
> an Open Source section on the whitelist. Thus increasing user
> consciousness for the differences between Free Software and Open Source.
> Maybe a logo for webservices on the whitelist will also be a good idea.

Yes, these are very good ideas.  We had originally considered approving
webservices months ago.  The discussion came up to address that "brand"
feeling concerning what Microsoft was doing with their hailstorm
services.  It was discussed in a number of contexts as well, including
whitelisting/blacklisting certain webservice providers - for abuses or
misuse of people's information.  

In all of these contexts it makes perfect sense, and could be a function
of the DotGNU project.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]