Unfortunately Frost's userbase isn't very well represented on these lists from what I have seen. Someone should ask this on a Frost board.
Ian. On 18 Nov 2005, at 15:27, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > Hi, > > In my case Fproxy is more important. I never found frost that > effective. > > Ed > > On Friday 18 November 2005 16:36, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> Which of these is more important? >> - SSKs -> minimal FCPv2 -> working frost boards, and maybe working >> frost >> filesharing too. (splitfiles work right now) >> - Manifests -> SSKs -> Fproxy (with initially command line site >> insert). >> - Opennet support. >> - Ability to fetch logs from nodes... >> >> Current issues: >> 1. We need money. Fast. >> One way to get this is to get some general enthusiasm amongst the >> Freenet userbase. Another is to get some amongst the slashdot crowd. >> Either way, we need more people on the network, and we need more >> apps. >> 2. We need more nodes. We need more people on the network. >> Problems: >> a) To debug properly, I need people to be online when their node >> is, so they can send me their logs if I want them. Possible >> fix: Make >> the node automatically send me logs if I ask for it; minimal >> testnet >> support. Then we can have all nodes online more or less >> permanently. >> b) Can just ask for more testers. (Come to #freenet-alphatest on >> irc.freenode.net if you want in!) >> c) Opennet is a possibility, but we don't want to have opennet >> support >> before we have shown that the darknet can vaguely work, and >> finished >> with the datastore format changes. Opennet is much less tested >> theoretically than darknet. >> 3. We need apps. >> a) Frost. If I implement SSKs, then a minimal FCP, then Frost should >> just about work, once it is rewritten a bit. >> b) Fproxy. If I implement SSKs, and manifests, then I can implement >> Fproxy, with sites initially being inserted through the command >> line >> interface. >> >> IMHO it is not yet time for opennet support, as we haven't finished >> playing with the datastore... >> >> The current testnet is very small. >
