On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 01:40:15PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> Of course we don't > >> want to stay in small, isolated networks forever; ideally we'd set up > >> small networks with our friends and merge them into the big network > >> later, but unfortunately I don't think Freenet's architecture can > >> accommodate that. > > > > Why not? Because small, isolated networks are useless? > > That's a pretty strong statement - are you talking about isolated > Freenet networks or isolated networks in general? Because there are a > lot of people using Direct Connect (not to mention private IRC channels, > FTP servers, etc etc).
Small isolated Freenet networks are of little value because we provide none of the features that would make them useful at present. > > Clearly the "one big network" approach and the "many small networks" > approach both have their advantages. For example, you have no anonymity > on a small network. On the other hand it's easier to find people to peer > with - if you don't know any members of the big network, just start your > own network with a couple of friends. > > All I'm trying to say is that in an ideal world we'd get the advantages > of both approaches if people could set up their own small networks and > later merge them into the big network. Of course. But to do that we have to make small isolated Freenet's useful. > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- 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/20070503/1dafacb5/attachment.pgp>
