Not useless.
Dangerous.
And how would it be dangerous if it were a feature you had to use by
choice? I'm not saying change the default behavior. I'm saying add an
option when you've rounded out the more vital parts of the program. Not
that it matters I suppose. If you don't add it then
Implementing scores of kinda-somewhat-maybe-useful features is a
great way to destroy any application.
One feature that should be extremely simple to implement and has a long
history of use is going to destroy FreeNet? It shouldn't even effect the
protocol at all. Surely you're being over
Timm Murray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sorry Mark, but the one computer, one node rule is something I
picked up from Oskar (I think), and I decided I agreed with him (and
not just because he's Oskar). Freenet works better with lots of
smaller nodes to spread the data out then to
From David McNab:
A Hypothetical Question:
If the system of software patents, plus the DMCA and SSSCA, had been
written into law
in 1950, what would have happened in the computer industry since then?
Think about it.
From: Scott Haman
I am working on a research
paper covering the
From David McNab:
A Hypothetical Question:
If the system of software patents, plus the DMCA and SSSCA, had been
written into law
in 1950, what would have happened in the computer industry since then?
Think about it.
From: Scott Haman
I am working on a research
paper covering the
Timm Murray:
Large datastores tend to centralize the network. Datastores don't fill up as
quickly and your node caches more data and less data falls out. On the surface,
this seems like an advantage; indeed, for a node operator's short term gain, it
is an advantage. However, over the
Timm Murray:
Over time, the large node simply accumulates more data from Freenet. This means
there should be more nodes which point to data on the large node. Thus, there will
be more requests routed to the large node.
Uhh... so? The node's big; it can handle lots of requests. That's
not a
Mark J Roberts:
Timm Murray:
Over time, the large node simply accumulates more data from Freenet. This means
there should be more nodes which point to data on the large node. Thus, there will
be more requests routed to the large node.
Uhh... so? The node's big; it can handle lots of
This feature is completely incompatible with Freenet's goals and
architecture (insofar as I understand the latter). Freenet isn't
Gnutella.
Thank gawd. Gnutella really does suck. Mostly because of users who take
without giving.
In fact, the closest approximation to Freenet that I'm aware
Insult is no way to begin a discussion. I can only assume you just want
to start a fight.
I had a couple of responses to you concerning Anarchism, free speech,
and how they all tie together in a free enterprise (such as capitalism).
But if you're going to be a dick about it, you can say hello
Perhaps you don't respect my freedom of speech?
Don't worry, I've got all the research I need for
freenet.
Funny how this is the only extreme philosophy in the
peer to peer arena. I wonder how successful it will
be? I'm sure corporations and service providers have a
lot of use for a
martin chao wrote:
Perhaps you don't respect my freedom of speech?
Don't worry, I've got all the research I need for
freenet.
Funny how this is the only extreme philosophy in the
peer to peer arena. I wonder how successful it will
be? I'm sure corporations and service providers have a
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:46:10PM -0700, martin chao wrote:
I began my paper
with a purely technical perspective, but after
studying freenet I've decided to change the focus to
political.
I suggest you stick to technical issues, your rhetorical skills clearly
require much development.
I
13 matches
Mail list logo
