On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 09:44:04AM -0500, MJR wrote: > Signal 11 wrote: > > > Good idea, but I think alot of people may be looking at Freenet > > and basically want Napster without a central authority. I think > > there needs to be something more detailed than what is on the > > Freenet page currently. > > A lot of people probably see freenet in that light. Why don't you take > one of the GPL'd napster clients and add freenet support? [1]
I believe that what Singal11 was trying to say (quite correctly) is that that is not what Freenet is. > And yes, I know it's not as simple as swapping the code, especially > while there's no C implementation. Nevertheless, the java clients will > write to stdout, so adding support for rudimentary client metadata > should not be much harder then creating a thread and doing a popen(). > Feel free to invent your own metadata conventions--nobody'll stop you! Freenet and Napster are completely different. There is no way to hack Freenet support into Napster (or vice versa). To start with we don't have searching. Secondly everyone would have to start by inserting their entire mp3 library. > > so far has been unfocused and disorganized. Freenet could be *anything* > > if you just browsed through what the major news organizations had to > > say about it. > > The average customer of the major news organizations probably thinks > napster is "a web site", too. Besides, freenet's a protocol, not just > some MP3 sharing hack. It really could be anything. Your toaster could > use freenet to subvert the evil, debaucherous, monopolistic > toasting-algorithm cartel. Freenet is not a protocol that allows other people to look through your local MP3 collection. Never was, never will be. > > Everyone here has a different idea of what Freenet is. Trying to code > > for a project when you don't know its goals is like trying to build > > a building without a blueprint. > > Freenet's goals are right on the project web page last time I checked. > > Freenet is a "completely decentralized" "peer-to-peer network" that > distributes information "in an efficient manner" "without fear of > censorship", "cannot be attacked" like Napster, and is "much more > efficient and scalable" than Gnutella. > > Seems pretty clear to me. No, I find that text extremely misleading. It makes it sound like Freenet is Napster or Gnutella clone (which I have heard it refered to as), which couldn't be more wrong. If you want to compare Freenet to something - compare it to the WWW. <> > [1] I suspect there are a great many people lurking here who are waiting > for a client library written in C to be released before they get > hacking. Hopefully someone experienced will write it soon. Not to diss your work, but a bunch of new clients are not badly needed at this point. And if the only thing keeping out developers is most C coders dogmatic approach to Java, how come Adam doesn't have a hundred developers helping him with Whiterose? > And no, my breakthroughs in checking if a port is open in C do not > qualify me. Sorry. > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev > -- \oskar _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
