On Tuesday 25 November 2008 22:55, Zero3 wrote: > Matthew Toseland skrev: > >> or not to use the > >> network is an open question. Freenet as currently implemented doesn't > >> play nice with laptops... maybe we should be more clear about that on > >> the website. > >> > > > > With big flashing warning signs? I wonder if there's any way to detect that > > the user is running a laptop pre-install... or post-install for that > > matter... :) Anyway even on a desktop we will still have poor uptime, so I > > guess there's little point in nagging the user about it. > > > Check for a battery? ;) > > To clarify for anyone who hasn't got the picture yet: > > Low uptime is very bad for Freenet. > > Low uptime darknet is nearly impossible for Freenet. > > Poor connectivity is bad for Freenet. > > Uncontrolled NATs and mobile nodes are bad for Freenet. > > > > To sum it up: > > LAPTOPS ARE BAD FOR FREENET! > > > > 0.10, as currently planned, will help a bit, but even so, uptime is always > > going to be a serious problem... Should we show a flashing warning sign if > > our uptime is below some percentage? > > > > > Shouldn't we just accept that fact that people are moving towards > mobility, and that most likely won't change anytime soon? :).
In the long term yes, we need the network (and especially any future darknets) to work much better with low uptime nodes. Hopefully the bandwidth available when there is uptime will be sufficient for a viable network. See my other mail (responding to sdiz) for details. > IPv6 will > probably solve most of the NAT and IP issues with time. No, first IPv6 will probably not be widely used for a loooong time, secondly, people will probably still use evil firewalls if not NATs, especially on shared/public connections, thirdly fast mobile connections are billed per gig and slow ones are throttled so severely as to be unusable for us, and this is likely to remain true for some time IMHO. > I doubt nagging > the user about uptime will help anything. Do we really want to support > people keeping their laptops online just to seed the Freenet network, > compared to saving power (you know, lack of oil in the world, money for > electricity, global heating, etc.) by turning it off? Can we morally > justify that? Is Freenet that important? (I'm not saying it is or isn't, > but think about it for a minute) It's a legitimate question. IMHO there are several answers: - Computers can be made considerably more efficient, so can Freenet. - For some users, a fanless low power server may be a realistic option. - Long-term requests make sneakernet (swapping USB keys), and ultra-wideband local rendezvous (meeting up in a pub and syncing) realistic options. However this requires long-term requests. And most of the devs think my views on sneakernet are unrealistic. :| However that is the direction we will have to move in, whether or not we actually implement sneakernet support. - Lots of stuff does run continually, and always will, look at mobile phones. -------------- 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/20081126/748d0769/attachment.pgp>
