Dnia sobota, 16 listopada 2013 22:19:03 Lodewijk andré de la porte pisze: > I am presently using it. I have connected with a significant portion of the > network. I find it is largely inert. > > (...) > > I do not have a solid recommendation. I use it for curiosity reasons now. > Although occasionally stimulating in it's novelty I find it unfit > technically and practically for critical work. It still seems to be the > best tool for the job, not unlike the rock-and-stick tools were the best > for cutting lumber in days long past.
Thank you for your comments. These are valuable, and they seem to confirm my (short) experience with it. > 2013/11/16 rysiek <[email protected]> > > > inb4 "Java suxxorz" -- yes, I tend to hold that view myself; hoever, if > > RetroShare is a workable solution, we can simply add C++/Python/Whatever > > implementations later, right? > > I think the implementation is messy. It might be less then normally > convenient to add other implementations. I am more interested in the protocol. People are already using RetroShare, right? It's FLOSS, it has some sort of a protocol underneath. So it is possible to create new implementations that do not make errors of the original one. *IF* (and that's a pretty big "if") the protocol is solid, of which I have no way to ascertain. So I guess this is my question: does RetroShare's protocol seem solid and sensible? Should we invest time and effort into it? As it is the first DHT-based communication and filesharing application/system based on strong encryption that is actually usable -- at least from what I have seen. -- Pozdr rysiek
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
