Holos announced they're working on adding custom domain support to their server. It's a really cool development, and I figured I'd share it here real quick.
If you're unfamiliar with Holos, it's an Activity Pub server that aims to be more relay like (somewhere between AT/Nostr and a standard Activity Pub account). The server acts as a relay, keeping a public copy of your posts and profile data online, but it delegates most operations to your client.
When I wrote about it a month ago it sounded like it was a possible consideration, but having it confirmed as something that's actually going to be the case is really cool to see. At the cost
... Show more...
Holos announced they're working on adding custom domain support to their server. It's a really cool development, and I figured I'd share it here real quick.
If you're unfamiliar with Holos, it's an Activity Pub server that aims to be more relay like (somewhere between AT/Nostr and a standard Activity Pub account). The server acts as a relay, keeping a public copy of your posts and profile data online, but it delegates most operations to your client.
When I wrote about it a month ago it sounded like it was a possible consideration, but having it confirmed as something that's actually going to be the case is really cool to see. At the cost of being a bit more technical, the idea of owning your identity on Activity Pub is really cool (you 'own' your own domain, plus are able to migrate even if the server is down since your client can make outgoing connections).
Anyway, figured it was worth a share, I'm looking forward to seeing Holos continue to be developed.
I'm experimenting with what I've deemed a 'mini blog' – smaller posts and different mediums separate from normal posts, while experimenting with different platforms/protocols, all linked together via a page and RSS link. If you want to see more you can follow here.
A mobile-first federated social network powered by ActivityPub. Join the fediverse with privacy, security, and freedom.
Fediverse Relay
Custom domain support for #Holos is in development and coming along nicely! Use @user@your-domain.com instead of @user@holos.social, just point your DNS to a relay (changeable anytime). Actor URIs and post URIs stay stable forever, so switching relays requires no migration. Your RSA keys + domain = portable identity. Optional feature for users wanting relay independence.
![Summary
Consent-based interaction controls are a way to declare, on a per-object basis, which types of interactions will be acknowledged by the object (or its owner) and who may perform them. For example, the author of a social media post might want to restrict the list of approved replies to a limited audience.
In a distributed system like the [ActivityPub] network, it is not generally possible to prevent people from publishing something that purports to interact with some existing object. However, the owner of an object may wish to limit the impact of the side effects of undesired interactions by applying filter criteria, and to make it transparent for third-party observers which interactions have been endorsed and which have been blocked.
To that end, this proposal describes a vocabulary to declare ahead of time how incoming interactions with an object are expected to be acknowledged, how actors may request to perform a specific interaction, how such a permission is granted or revoked, and how external parties can verify whether an interaction was accepted. This specification includes vocabulary to describe interaction controls for `Like` and `Announce` activities as well as for replies, but the interaction policy schema can be extended to novel interaction types.](https://social.trom.tf/photo/preview/640/41274401 "Summary
Consent-based interaction controls are a way to declare, on a per-object basis, which types of interactions will be acknowledged by the object (or its owner) and who may perform them. For example, the author of a social media post might want to restrict the list of approved replies to a limited audience.
In a distributed system like the [ActivityPub] network, it is not generally possible to prevent people from publishing something that purports to interact with some existing object. However, the owner of an object may wish to limit the impact of the side effects of undesired interactions by applying filter criteria, and to make it transparent for third-party observers which interactions have been endorsed and which have been blocked.
To that end, this proposal describes a vocabulary to declare ahead of time how incoming interactions with an object are expected to be acknowledged, how actors may request to perform a specific interaction, how such a permission is granted or revoked, and how external parties can verify whether an interaction was accepted. This specification includes vocabulary to describe interaction controls for `Like` and `Announce` activities as well as for replies, but the interaction policy schema can be extended to novel interaction types.")
🎃Imogen🎃
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Ox1de
I stand corrected.
GrapheneOS
in reply to 🎃Imogen🎃 • • •🎃Imogen🎃
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to 🎃Imogen🎃 • • •@HopelessDemigod They didn't sell it but rather split it. Every Motorola shareholder received 1 share of Motorola Mobility for each 8 shares of Motorola. After spinning off Motorola Mobility, they did a reverse 1-for-7 reverse stock split for Motorola and renamed it to Motorola Solutions.
It was initially the same owners for both companies but immediately diverged due to both being publicly traded. Google acquiring Motorola Mobility ended the historical shared ownership of the companies.
🎃Imogen🎃
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@HopelessDemigod Motorola Solutions keeping the original legal entity is only really a technical detail rather than it being the only actual continuation of the company.
Motorola Mobility is definitely also a continuation of the original Motorola.
Motorola Solutions has some of the older parts of the business including the radios but the mobile phones and the pagers before those which were discontinued long before the split are what most people recognized as being tied to the company.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@HopelessDemigod @Ox1de Keeping the legal entity for Motorola Solutions was likely more about it being heavily based around government contracts in particular. It avoided a whole lot of hassle and potentially losing a lot of money. It was easier for Motorola Mobility to shift everything over than Motorola Solutions.
Google messed things up by acquiring it for the patents, not knowing what to do with the rest and gutting it to save money short term. They could have just spun it off immediately.
🎃Imogen🎃
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Agreed.
In the case of the original Bell Telephone Company they formed Bell IP Holding, L.L.C which each of the separate companies collectively own including their successors.