[freenet-dev] Re: Devl Digest, Vol 11, Issue 33

Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:24:38 -0700

 

Hay, Helló, Szervusz(tok)!       

 

  I'm publikacio HERBALIFE -< ID:F7003203 > assistance
 
pack HUF 30200,-Ft, - cirka ~ 160 $  
 
 
Thank Yu very much!  
 
//:Add tovább & barataid hálásak lesznek érte!://
 
 
 


-- Eredeti üzenet --
Másolat:
Elküldve: 2006.08.18  14:00
Téma: Devl Digest, Vol 11, Issue 33


Send Devl mailing list submissions to
[email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Devl digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: "Insert Files" - why? (David 'Bombe' Roden)
2. Re: Darknet and opennet: semi-separate networks?
(Matthew Toseland)
3. Re: Darknet and opennet: semi-separate networks?
(Matthew Toseland)
4. Re: "Insert Files" - why? (Matthew Toseland)
5. Re: Darknet and opennet: semi-separate networks? (Ian Clarke)
6. Re: "Insert Files" - why? (Jano)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:35:21 +0200
From: David 'Bombe' Roden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] "Insert Files" - why?
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"

On Thursday 17 August 2006 22:06, Ian Clarke wrote:

> Hmm, that is kind of a specialist need, does it really have to have
> such prominence on the FProxy page? Could it be a plugin instead?

As nextgens suggested I'll remove the link from the navigation bar and
include a link on the queue page.


> I think $HOME might be better.

Okay.


> Ian.

David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/7c3958b7/attachment.pgp

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:10:09 +0100
From: Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Darknet and opennet: semi-separate
networks?
To: Discussion of development issues <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:16:26AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006, at 09:58, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:37:02AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >>I don't believe that the darknet and opennet will be weakly connected
> >>as you suggest, but neither of us can no for sure until we see it.
> >
> >We can know for near certain that darknets operating in hostile
> >environments will be weakly connected to the opennet, and probably to
> >other darknets too, for the simple reason that they CANNOT use
> >opennet.
>
> No, but they can be connected to peers outside the hostile
> environment that can be promiscuous.

Sure, but the hope is that there will be several very large (thousands
of nodes) chinese/iranian/etc darknets, which would have to have
relatively few "uplink" nodes, not just hundreds of ten node ones.
>
> Ian.
--
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/e31164bc/attachment.pgp

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:15:20 +0100
From: Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Darknet and opennet: semi-separate
networks?
To: Discussion of development issues <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:16:34PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> On 17 Aug 2006, at 10:42, Evan Daniel wrote:
> >On 8/17/06, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On 17 Aug 2006, at 09:58, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >>
> >>On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:37:02AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >>I don't believe that the darknet and opennet will be weakly connected
> >>as you suggest, but neither of us can no for sure until we see it.
> >>
> >>We can know for near certain that darknets operating in hostile
> >>environments will be weakly connected to the opennet, and probably to
> >>other darknets too, for the simple reason that they CANNOT use
> >>opennet.
> >>
> >>No, but they can be connected to peers outside the hostile
> >>environment that can be promiscuous.
> >
> >Can they? If the outside peer is promiscuous, then it can be
> >harvested (with some greater amount of effort than for 0.5, right?).
> >So can't a hostile gov't harvest external promiscuous nodes and block
> >all traffic to / from them? Then you'd need a user behind the
> >firewall to connect to a darknet-only node outside the firewall, which
> >would then connect to promiscuous nodes via darknet connections.
>
> Perhaps, in which case the solution is for someone inside the
> firewall to connect to a darknet node outside the firewall, they can
> then connect to opennet nodes. In this case the user in the hostile
> regime is still just 2 hops from the opennet.

There is a limited supply of friendly westerners, and there is also a
limited intersection of content between the two networks. If the network
is to work well for the chinese then it will have to scale *internally*,
so that people can add their friends without rapidly slowing down their
own access. What you suggest is analogous to me running a proxy for a
few of my chinese friends; if they connect their friends to that proxy,
and their friends connect their friends, pretty soon it is intolerably
slow. You need a large network with lots of internal nodes connected to
each other, and relatively few external connections.
>
> >That might be a problem... And it's definitely a way in which having
> >an open-net hurts the darknet (though I do agree that we have a
> >defacto open-net right now).
>
> I think this final parenthesized point is the key, we don't have a
> darknet right now, we have a very very flawed opennet. This
> situation will persist until we provide a decent opennet solution.

True, we have a flawed opennet with some darknet links.
>
> Ian.
--
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/9d972b5e/attachment.pgp

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:16:39 +0100
From: Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] "Insert Files" - why?
To: Discussion of development issues <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:05:22PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> I don't really understand why we have replicated the "Browse File"
> functionality built into all browsers in the new "Insert Files"
> section of FProxy? A case of "Not Invented Here"?

Temporary space. If we force the browser to upload it directly, it is
stored in many more places than if we tell the node where the file is -
which no browser will do; they must send the filename, not the full
path.
--
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/e99de63b/attachment.pgp

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:35:24 -0700
From: Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Darknet and opennet: semi-separate
networks?
To: Discussion of development issues <[email protected]>
Cc: Oskar Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

(copying Oskar - I think you will want to read this)

On 17 Aug 2006, at 14:15, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:16:34PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> Perhaps, in which case the solution is for someone inside the
>> firewall to connect to a darknet node outside the firewall, they can
>> then connect to opennet nodes. In this case the user in the hostile
>> regime is still just 2 hops from the opennet.
>
> There is a limited supply of friendly westerners, and there is also a
> limited intersection of content between the two networks. If the
> network
> is to work well for the chinese then it will have to scale
> *internally*,
> so that people can add their friends without rapidly slowing down
> their
> own access. What you suggest is analogous to me running a proxy for a
> few of my chinese friends; if they connect their friends to that
> proxy,
> and their friends connect their friends, pretty soon it is intolerably
> slow. You need a large network with lots of internal nodes
> connected to
> each other, and relatively few external connections.

I agree that if we end up in a situation where we have large parts of
the network only connected to each other through a very small number
of links that this will be problematic as those links will quickly be
overloaded. I'm not yet convinced that this situation will occur,
but I agree that it is a possibility.

I think the fundamental reason for this problem is the migration
towards a more simplistic notion of node specialization in 0.7. The
more flexible approach of 0.5 where nodes can have more than one
specialization, and varying degrees of specialization in response to
demand, I believe, would be able to deal with this situation. 0.7's
simpler approach may not.

I don't think the solution is to have some different routing behavior
depending on whether it is a darknet or an opennet node, because this
doesn't solve the problem that the information you want is still very
likely to be outside your isolated corner of Freenet. Perhaps if
nodes maintained two specializations, one for "local darknet" and
another for "global opennet", that could solve the problem, but that
strikes me as being rather ugly.os

For now I suggest that we wait and see, if we do start to see a
network topology that essentially consists of multiple small world
networks that are poorly connected to each-other, then we may need to
consider moving back to something closer to the 0.5 approach to node
specialization.

Ian.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFE5OEcQtgxRWSmsqwRAq04AJ9eJopVTpgKg8FofnukjGIow5PzKQCdGTb1
ePKFPPg9tWcqHhg3LYT2Ncg=
=roc7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:52:29 +0200
From: Jano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [freenet-dev] Re: "Insert Files" - why?
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Ian Clarke wrote:

>
> On 17 Aug 2006, at 12:49, David 'Bombe' Roden wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 17 August 2006 21:05, Ian Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> I don't really understand why we have replicated the "Browse File"
>>> functionality built into all browsers in the new "Insert Files"
>>> section of FProxy? A case of "Not Invented Here"?
>>
>> In the future I intend to run the node on a different computer so
>> the "Insert Files" box is essentially completely useless if the file I
>> want to insert is on the machine running the node.
>
> Hmm, that is kind of a specialist need, does it really have to have
> such prominence on the FProxy page? Could it be a plugin instead?

I don't think is that specialist need. I'm doing it, for example, and the
reason is quite clear: having a box 24/7 is not easy, so once you have one
you want to have your node here, and use it via ssh tunneling from
everywhere (this in fact works fantastic with frost/thaw/browsing).



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

End of Devl Digest, Vol 11, Issue 33
************************************

--------------------------Hirdetés-----------------------------
SZERETNE EGY KIVÁLÓ EMAIL CíMET?!
Ne vesződjön más free szolgáltatókkal!
Válassza a minőséget és a megbizhatóságot!
Klikk ide: http://www.vipmail.hu

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Reply via email to