NLnet has awarded grants totaling €675,000 to eleven open-source projects focused on reclaiming the public internet. These projects aim to develop and improve decentralized, privacy-respecting alternatives to centralized platforms and services. The funded initiatives cover areas like peer-to-peer communication, distributed social networking, censorship-resistant content distribution, and decentralized identity management, all contributing to a more democratic and resilient online experience. The grants are part of NLnet's Commons Fund, which supports initiatives that foster open standards, protocols, and infrastructure.
Kalua expands OpenWrt's capabilities to facilitate the creation of large, robust mesh networks. It provides tools for automated configuration, monitoring, and management of numerous nodes, simplifying deployment and maintenance. Key features include a distributed configuration system based on CRDTs for eventual consistency, a modular architecture for flexible customization, and integration with existing OpenWrt packages. This allows for dynamic network adaptation, self-healing, and simplified firmware updates across the entire mesh, making it suitable for complex and evolving network topologies.
HN users discuss Kalua's potential, particularly its ability to create large, self-organizing mesh networks. Some express excitement about its use of BATMAN-adv and OLSRv2, praising its ease of configuration compared to other mesh networking solutions. Concerns are raised regarding scalability, security (specifically the use of a single pre-shared key), and the lack of recent updates to the project. Several commenters inquire about real-world deployments and performance metrics, highlighting the need for more documentation and user experiences to assess its practical viability. There's also interest in its suitability for specific use-cases, such as disaster relief and community networks.
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) is discreetly funding community-owned fiber optic networks, bringing affordable, high-speed internet access to underserved areas. These networks offer gigabit speeds for just $50-$65 per month, significantly undercutting incumbent ISPs often providing slower speeds at higher prices. This funding is helping bridge the digital divide by empowering communities to build and control their own internet infrastructure, fostering local economic development and improving access to essential services.
Hacker News commenters generally lauded the ARPA-funded community-owned fiber initiatives. Several pointed out the significant difference between publicly owned/community-owned networks and the usual private ISP model, highlighting the potential for better service, lower prices, and local control. Some expressed concerns about the long-term sustainability and scalability of these projects, questioning whether the initial funding would be enough and if these smaller networks could compete with established giants. Others noted the importance of community engagement and technical expertise for success. A recurring theme was the frustration with existing ISPs and their perceived lack of investment in underserved areas, with commenters expressing hope that these community projects could serve as a model for broader change. Several commenters also discussed the regulatory hurdles and lobbying power of incumbent ISPs, emphasizing the need for continued public support and advocacy for these alternative models.
Summary of Comments ( 177 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43769482
Hacker News commenters generally expressed support for NLnet's funding of open-source internet infrastructure projects. Several highlighted the importance of decentralization and moving away from reliance on large corporations. Some questioned the viability or impact of certain projects, particularly Matrix, while others championed its potential. A few commenters discussed the challenges of funding and sustaining open-source projects long-term, suggesting alternative funding mechanisms and emphasizing the need for community involvement. There was also a thread discussing the definition of "public internet" and whether these projects genuinely contribute to it.
The Hacker News post "Open Source Projects Receive Funding to Reclaim the Public Internet" (linking to an NLnet foundation grants announcement) generated several comments discussing the funded projects and the overall initiative.
Several commenters expressed enthusiasm for specific projects. One commenter highlighted the "Public money, public code" approach being taken by the Guix project, praising its commitment to software freedom and transparency. They further emphasized the importance of reproducible builds in ensuring the integrity and verifiability of software. Another user expressed excitement about the funding awarded to Qubes OS, citing its unique security model based on virtualization. They saw this as a crucial step towards strengthening online privacy and security. Another commenter, seemingly familiar with Qubes, added that the funding is particularly relevant given the recent surge in sophisticated malware attacks.
There was a discussion around the significance of funding open-source infrastructure projects. A commenter emphasized the crucial, yet often overlooked, role of such projects in underpinning the internet. They pointed out how these projects often operate with limited resources and how such funding can significantly impact their sustainability and development. This sentiment was echoed by another user who lamented the historical underfunding of public infrastructure in the digital realm, expressing hope that initiatives like NLnet's would pave the way for a more robust and publicly owned internet infrastructure.
One commenter focused on the legal aspects of open source, drawing attention to the importance of licenses and emphasizing their role in guaranteeing software freedoms. They expressed concern that without proper licensing, the positive impact of such funding could be diminished.
Several users engaged in a discussion about the technical merits of different projects. One thread discussed the complexities of decentralized systems and their potential to address issues of censorship and control. Another thread debated the advantages and disadvantages of particular software development methodologies.
Finally, some commenters broadened the discussion to the larger philosophical implications of a "public internet." They discussed the ongoing tension between centralized platforms and decentralized alternatives, and the importance of initiatives like this in promoting a more open and democratic internet. They viewed funding for open-source projects as a crucial step towards reclaiming the internet as a public good, rather than a space dominated by corporate interests.