On Saturday 27 September 2008 20:28, Michael Rogers wrote: > On Sep 27 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote: > >On Saturday 27 September 2008 15:41, Michael Rogers wrote: > >> On Sep 27 2008, NextGen$ wrote: > >> >If someone you don't trust has physical access to your computer you are > >> >doomed in any case... whether freenet is running or not when he gets his > >> >hands on the keyboard doesn't change anything. > >> > >> It's worthwhile to protect against casual attackers even if you can't > >> protect against determined attackers. For example I have a password on > >> my laptop, even though someone *could* pop the case open and clone the > >> hard drive. > > > > Nonetheless, starting the node during startup rather than when the user > > has logged in is an improvement, especially as we will probably have to > > reseed every time (making Freenet a centralised network in practice - he > > who controls the seednodes controls most of the network). > > I don't think it's as simple as saying "it's an improvement" - there's a > tradeoff between uptime on the one hand,
Uptime is a big factor. But also we have performance - on a system where the user has to choose which user to log in as / has to type in a password, starting as a service gains us quite a few seconds, which are very valuable if we have to reseed. > and privacy and convenience on the > other (convenience because Freenet's quite a large app to have running in > the background if you're not the person who installed it). It shouldn't be. We're working on that. > > We're only talking about multi-user PCs here, because there's almost no > difference in uptime for a single-user PC: the user typically logs in when > the machine starts (either automatically or as soon as the login screen > appears) and logs out by shutting down the machine. So the question is, > what's the tradeoff for a multi-user PC? > > To my mind, squeezing extra uptime out of a multi-user machine by running > in the background while other users are logged in is an underhanded tactic > that's likely to piss people off. Freenet uses quite a lot of memory and > bandwidth, so it has a non-negligible impact on the machine's > responsiveness - you've said yourself that gamers might want to shut it > down, but what if they don't even know it's running? > > Uptime is really important, I'm not disputing that, but we shouldn't try to > get it in ways that are likely to piss people off. Are there any such ways? > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- 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/20080930/dd852f27/attachment.pgp>
