I agree w.r.t. opennet. My criteria for implementing opennet are that: - Darknet is reasonably stable: We must at the very least have implemented the new load limiting/balancing system, and the new caching algorithm. - It is easy to create darknet connections with people you know. (AIM plugins, etc). - There is a major, immediate benefit to creating such connections (local filesharing, local IM, port forwarding, etc etc).
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:09:45AM +0000, Thomas Bruderer wrote: > Matthew Toseland <toad at ...> writes: > > > > > 1. Most people who reach the downloads page apparently don't download > > the installer. > > - Is there a technical problem? > > - Is it simply that the installer is cached by web proxies? > > > > 2. A lot of people are downloading Freenet 0.7 > > > > 3. Very few of them are seeking references on #freenet-refs. > > - Link to some IRC clients? Many people don't know what IRC is! > > - Opennet? > > - Alternate forums for getting references (i.e. fake opennet). > > Maybe its futile to insist again, but I want to point out that opennet would > be a solution to all this. However those people which dont get to IRC wont > be the 24/7 nodes. This are those 4 to 8 hour nodes... maybe you don't want > them at all. > > The new statistic about the Backoff ratio is nice, maybe you should do a > Connected vs. Disconnected Ratio as well. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060703/aeeb4f82/attachment.pgp>
