On Sun, 07 May 2000, Lawrence W. Leung wrote:
> I think it's unreasonable to expect most users to run their own local
> nodes. Most end users will probably use a trusted node (isp's, company's)
> simply because it's a pain to set one up. Even if end users setup their
> own nodes, they'll tend to have a low uptime and not be too useful to the
> network as a whole.
But even so it is static. The client does not have to worry about connecting to
different nodes, only that it has one to connect to. Like news, most people
don't run news servers locally, but they still don't want to put the news
severs name in every message since they are almost definitely using the same
one every time.
>
> With the current scheme it does default to localhost:19114.
> Just use: freenet:///<key>
>
> Most users I've talked to like this scheme.
Fuck the users, most users you have talked to have no clue what Freenet is. Data
on Freenet is located via it's key. The entrance address is irrelevant, putting
it in the data's URL is completely misleading, even if you have a the ability
not to.
> > more like
> >
> > free:KHK-SHA1=<string>
> > free:CHK-SHA1=<content hash in hex|base64>&<decryption key in hex|base64>
> > etc
>
> Just having the tag "free:" is confusing. You save 3 letters but loose
> user friendliness. (free?? what the heck is free?) You throw user
> friendliness out of the window with "KHK-SHA1" and "CHK-SHA1".
What the heck is freenet? And, by golly, what they heck is http, I bet you
that 90% of all users don't have a clue?
> Do we have an agreed upon proposal for chk's yet?
More or less, I think so. I don't know exactly how it will look until I have
written it, which won't happen until the beginning of June unless somebody else
does it, but I think the opposition gave into keytype dependent stream
validation.
> Thoughts?
I think putting the node in the URL is the way wrong approach. Everyone won't
run a Node on localhost (I run my own node, but not on my workstation), so a
good client should read a ~/.freenet file or something for the entrance nodes
location, but since it doesn't vary, putting it in URL is way wrong. That would
be like putting the HTTP proxy in the URL rather then a setting in browser.
> -Larry
>
----------------------------------------
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; name="FreenetURL"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64
Content-Description:
----------------------------------------
--
Oskar Sandberg
md98-osa at nada.kth.se
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
