#1: 41 votes : release the 20 nodes barrier "most of the users nowadays have a lot of upload-bandwith available. Myself has about 3Mbits upload, but the limit to connect to not more than 20 nodes results in about 50kb/s max. Please release the limit or use a dynamic system that offers more connections if the node has a high bandwith upload limit (scaling). Thx"
I'm not sure what to do about this. The original rationale for the 20 peers limit was that we didn't want to disadvantage darknet nodes too much on a hybrid network, since they will not often have large numbers of peers. Combined with experience on 0.5 suggesting that more peers is not always better, a security concern over over-reliance on ubernodes, and the fact that we should eventually be able to improve bandwidth usage through better load management. However, there's a limit to what we are able to achieve through better load management, and it's a difficult problem. Thoughts? #2: 38 votes : one GUI for all "For new (non-technical) users it may be very difficult to understand what they really need, how to do it and how to use it. The entry point of an application plus its visible style, the user interface aso. are playing the biggest role for acceptance nowadays. Therefore there may be the need of a GUI (I imagine one written in XUL, so it runs on all plattforms, easily extensible, aso., we are already using a custom firefox profile so why don't write our own user interface?) that provides all mechanisms that are available throughout the freenet network. File sharing, messaging, flogs, identity management and others." IMHO part of this is simply an endorsement of the current not yet implemented policy to move everything possible into the web interface. A well designed web interface could be easy to use and responsive. There is an argument that we need an actual XUL app ... but this will be a huge amount of work to little benefit IMHO. #3 tied: 33 votes : show a progress screen when loading a page (Filed by me) "Is this a good idea? Would it make Freenet more user friendly if it didn't go off into limbo while loading a link?" This is planned. IMHO we should implement it before releasing 0.8.0, it would be a significant enhancement even without real time updates with javascript support, provided it is not shown unless we have reason to believe the download will take more than 5 seconds. It is especially interesting if combined with some new content filters for e.g. audio files. #3 tied: 33 votes : dynamic pages "I would like to see the ability to host dynamicly changing pages in freenet, I have tried to implement it myself and found it verry hard. Possibly integration with apache would be perfect." This may happen eventually, but probably post 1.0. Sandboxed plugins are probably the best approach, but even with a defined API and sandboxing, there are a lot of security issues innate in Freenet itself e.g. timing attacks on the datastore. #3 tied: 33 votes : add a 'pause' feature "It would be cool if it was possible to 'pause' a freenet node. I mean, stop all network traffic, warn peers that we are on pause, but keep the node alive. That would allow short downtimes for online gaming without the hassle of having to restart the node and wait for it becoming usable again." IMHO offline mode is a good idea, especially when combined with a systray icon. It would also help with e.g. connections that are throttled or billed severely at certain times of day. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20081231/86c68f8b/attachment.pgp>
