Timm Murray wrote: >>From: "Scott G. Miller" <scgmille at freenetproject.org> >> >>All we need now is an arsenal of kickass freenet client apps. >> >>Status of traditional internet applications, and their implementation (or >>lack thereof) over Freenet: >> >>1) Web browsing - now working well :) >> freenet doesnt seems to work well so does the web browsing
>> >>2) Email - nothing yet - apps urgently needed - either dedicated freenet >>f-mail application, or (preferably) POP/SMTP servers to support any email >> maybe imap local servrer java application with ssl included fotr paranoid >> >>client in the way that fproxy/fcpproxy supports any web browser. This would >>be best if it uses openPGP libraries, and supports automatic key exchange, >>even runs a central in-freenet PK service. >> >> >> >>3) Chat - nothing yet - value of this could be questionable because of rate >>of key insertions required, and their effect on Freenet >> >>4) Usenet - the FMB beta client is an excellent start - it needs to support >>n 'newsgroups' instead of just one. >> and even fmb could be converted in a nttp proxy > >These last three things were being done by the EOF project, but I never much >liked the implementation of them. The e-mail and usenet were implemented using >servlets (ick), and chat--as you said--is of questionable value (but EOF has a >history of doing crazy stuff, so we'll probably do it anyway). Of the three, >usenet is probably the best idea. > >BTW--EOF is now becoming a standards body for implementing other Internet >protocols over Freenet. Code coming out of the project, if any, will consist >of referance distributions. > >>5) File-sharing - while the Napster and Gnutella protocols as they stand are >>totally impossible within Freenet, many concepts can be borrowed and adapted >>into a scheme well-suited to Freenet, and front-ended with a specialised >>Freenet client. Search functionality is also very possible - some of FMB's >>architectural concepts could be borrowed for this (provided that FMB isn't >>filed under a software patent (...just kidding!)). >> > >While no centralization should be put into Freenet itself, no one can stop a >client writer from putting centralization in their client if they so choose. I >would probably build a Freenet file sharing system using Freegle as a >front-end. > >>6) FTP - not supported yet - repositories of downloadable media files are >>presently implemented as a loose network of inter-linked freesites - scope >>exists for a freenet client to be implemented as a localhost FTP server, >>which inserts files that are picked up by an anonymous master server, which >>re-inserts these files under a master tree. Enumerated keys instead of >>date-based SSKs. Through using SSK public or private keys under the root, >>the FTP server can support the FTP client in inserting and requesting keys. >> > >Some months ago, someone on the EOF lists mentioned that they were working on >a FTP-Freenet client. I think he got it working, too. > >>7) CVS - nothing done yet, however the idea aroused interesting discussion >>on #freenet recently, where developers rated the idea as viable. >> >>Cheers >>David >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Devl mailing list >>Devl at freenetproject.org >>http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl >> > > > > > >----------------------------------------------- >Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.com >Online email application > >_______________________________________________ >Devl mailing list >Devl at freenetproject.org >http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl > _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
