silverpillHow Nomadic ActivityPub (FEP-ef61) compares to other protocols?
I made a table:
https://codeberg.org/ap-next/ap-next/src/branch/main/nomadpub.md#protocol-comparison
Jupiter Rowland@silverpill Would be interesting to add Hubzilla's Zot6 and (streams)' Nomad (which would be Zot12 if it wasn't incompatible with Zot6) to the list.
By the way: Forte doesn't require a gateway to communicate with non-nomadic ActivityPub. A fully cloned Forte channel can communicate with a Mastodon account without jumping through hoops. Remember that Forte has almost fully-featured Hubzilla-level nomadic identity (i.e. everything except real-time syncing between channel instances; unlike Hubzilla and (streams) which do sync in real time, it needs a cronjob for that) directly built into its core.
(streams) does support nomadic identity via ActivityPub. But internally, it uses and relies upon Nomad for its nomadic identity. It only supports nomadic identity via ActivityPub a) because it was used as a development platform for just this and b) in order to be able to understand cloned nomadic ActivityPub actors elsewhere. This is also why it isn't possible to move from (streams) to Forte, to move from Forte to (streams) or to clone between (streams) and Forte.
(streams) itself doesn't require gateways to communicate with Mastodon & Co. either. It speaks three protocols natively: its own Nomad, Hubzilla's Zot6 and (optionally, but on by default) standard ActivityPub.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #ActivityPub #Zot #Zot6 #Nomad #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #NomadicIdentity
By the way: Forte doesn't require a gateway to communicate with non-nomadic ActivityPub. A fully cloned Forte channel can communicate with a Mastodon account without jumping through hoops. Remember that Forte has almost fully-featured Hubzilla-level nomadic identity (i.e. everything except real-time syncing between channel instances; unlike Hubzilla and (streams) which do sync in real time, it needs a cronjob for that) directly built into its core.
(streams) does support nomadic identity via ActivityPub. But internally, it uses and relies upon Nomad for its nomadic identity. It only supports nomadic identity via ActivityPub a) because it was used as a development platform for just this and b) in order to be able to understand cloned nomadic ActivityPub actors elsewhere. This is also why it isn't possible to move from (streams) to Forte, to move from Forte to (streams) or to clone between (streams) and Forte.
(streams) itself doesn't require gateways to communicate with Mastodon & Co. either. It speaks three protocols natively: its own Nomad, Hubzilla's Zot6 and (optionally, but on by default) standard ActivityPub.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #ActivityPub #Zot #Zot6 #Nomad #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #NomadicIdentity
Would be interesting to add Hubzilla's Zot6 and (streams)' Nomad (which would be Zot12 if it wasn't incompatible with Zot6) to the list.
I'll think about it. As far as I know, Zot identities are keys, all data is portable and private content is possible. I guess the main difference between Zot and FEP-ef61 would be in ActivityPub interop?
By the way: Forte doesn't require a gateway to communicate with non-nomadic ActivityPub.
No, from FEP-ef61 point of view, there's still a gateway, because Forte doesn't use canonical IDs. We can say that Forte is a client and a gateway combined in a single piece of software.
jandi@silverpill (added @jupiter_rowland)
Very interesting, thanks for the link!
I've recently started testing Holos, do you know about it? It seems to me (not a dev) that there are similarities, I hope you don't mind me tagging @HolosSocial to ask if there's something common to any of the listed projects and FEPs with Holos.
https://holos.social/how-it-works
Perhaps it merits a mention in the comparison table?
Thanks to all involved, nomadic/portable fediverse identities is a very exciting prospect.
@jandi @HolosSocial @jupiter_rowland
The similarities are superficial.
Holos is a regular ActivityPub application, where user's identity is bound to a domain name. Having a Holos account is equivalent to running a single user instance and doing continuous database backups. The difference is in the software architecture, not in the protocol: the database is located on user's phone instead of the machine where the server is running.
The how-it-works page also talks about cryptographic keys "never leaving your device". This is just misleading marketing. The location of the keys is irrelevant, because keys in ActivityPub are identified by URIs, and what an URI resolves to is controlled by a person who controls the server frontend and the domain name.