One of the interesting things I've seen on the fediverse:
blahaj.zone run both a #calckey and #lemmy instance under the same domain/community. (I learnt this by running into @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone on lemmy, who is also @ada@blahaj.zone on calckey)
See:
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/
https://blahaj.zone/
I don't know how effective it is in practice, but it sure seems like a great way to foster more diversity and richness in the fediverse experience, especially if some integrations can be built, like mutual ids.
You're viewing a single thread.
@maegul@hachyderm.io @fediversenews@venera.social @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone It's worth nothing that the lemmy instance was not spun up to be effective, it was spun up because I wanted to try it out :)
And now it's a part of my daily routine and has a small but growing user base :)
@ada@blahaj.zone @fediversenews @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone @maegul Are they completely separate or do they share a user database? I’m pretty sure Mastodon will let you use an existing external LDAP service as the authentication backend, but I know nothing much about Lemmy. That would be a cool way to solve some people’s gripes about multiple Fediverse IDs. Have a cluster of Pixelfed, Mastodon, Lemmy, Bookwyrm all sharing a user list. One account, lots of features.
@MetalSamurai@mas.to @fediversenews@venera.social @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone @maegul@hachyderm.io They're separate. It's an interesting idea to tie them together to a central identity, but as a user rather than an admin, I'm not sure I'd be happy to use a feature like that unless identities were truly mobile.
@ada@blahaj.zone @MetalSamurai @fediversenews @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
What exactly do you mean by mobile here? Like, following any one of your accounts results in following all of your accounts? Something else?
@maegul@hachyderm.io @MetalSamurai@mas.to @fediversenews@venera.social @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone I mean, independent of a particular instance. So you own it and can take it with you elsewhere, rather than it being tied to the instance/community you happen to be using.
@ada@blahaj.zone @fediversenews @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone @maegul It would probably make more sense for an organisation to do it for members. But I’d quite like the simplicity of a one stop shop. I’ve set up several accounts on different platforms to try them out. They’re all obviously me, but not linked, which is a pain.
@MetalSamurai
How would this work. I am assuming a single handle that will be used on multiple platforms. That men's the associated WebFinger doc should contain all the associated HTTP URIs of these services. If they are all present in a single doc, how would the peering server will select from the multiple URIs?
@ada@blahaj.zone @fediversenews @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone @maegul@aswath @ada@blahaj.zone @fediversenews @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone @maegul No, they’d be separate but linked. So @user@lemmy.example.com @user@mastodon.example.com and @user@pixelfed.example.com would all be created at the same time and refer to the same user in a shared LDAP user database. Maybe the alsoKnownAs field would be useful? Some people would love this, others will hate it.
@MetalSamurai @aswath @ada@blahaj.zone @fediversenews @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
I’ve seen someone implement a simple solution, I think, where effectively one platform stands as the single point of authentication and am the others defer to it. I forget how it was drive, but recall once you worked out the details it was utter straightforward to get mastodon to be the single point.
@maegul
Did the scheme you saw use diff handle for diff services, but use a single auth scheme? If not, when a federating server wants to post an article, how would it know the specific end point? If yes, then I suppose OAuth could be used to do auth.
@MetalSamurai @ada@blahaj.zone @fediversenews @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone