[freenet-support] IE6/XP SP2 may no longer treat text/plain as ambiguous?
toad wrote: > Somebody with XP SP2 and IE6, please visit the below site, and tell me > if it redirects you to fbi.gov: On my sandbox box I use for such testing, it does redirect to fbi.gov. > Visit the current edition of freenetwatch: > USK at > jotJldLVFPDEnvRqfhBWsnXPQpOS~QrawxFjgsLZcFQ,xnNqE4Z~zMHmIUmqrA0oziUFSXNOAC7OhOOH4yhcBq4,AQABAAE/freenetwatch/38/ > > Click on the RSS feed. If you have a recent version of Freenet, this > will produce a warning page. Click on "open the file as plain text"; > does it open the RSS feed as RSS, or does it show it as text? Same with > "force your browser to save it to disk" and "open the file as RSS" > please. - save as plain text, does nothing. - force download wants to save it as a text file, and - open as RSS splats it out as unformatted RSS -- Ken Snider
Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06
Brandon Low wrote: > Well, it's moot any way, since I have no applicable code, but you are > right, it doesn't impact Freenet the same way that it does Linux, my > concern is more one of compatibility with GPL2 distributions as > discussed in the linux kernel position statement. > > The GPL3, as the GPL2 is often accused of being, but is not in practice, > is a viral license, that is that there are some cases in which as > written, it would require a user of the license to release _other_ > property under a compatible license. This is untrue, and a serious misunderstanding of GPLv3. The fact that it is being propagated as FUD frankly astounds me. From the FSF's clarification (http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3-clarification): === 2. In order to honor freedom 0, your freedom to run the program as you wish, a free software license may not contain "use restrictions" that would restrict what you can do with it. Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use restrictions, and the final version won't either. GPLv3 will prohibit certain distribution practices which restrict users' freedom to modify the code. We hope this policy will thwart the ways some companies wish to "use" free software -- namely, distributing it to you while controlling what you can do with it. This policy is not a "use restriction": it doesn't restrict how they, or you, can run the program; it doesn't restrict what they, or you, can make the program do. Rather it ensures you, as a user, are as free as they are. Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company to "lose its entire [software] patent portfolio". It simply says that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can't sue the program's subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program. This has no effect on other patents which that program does not implement. Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using software patents. Therefore, if we could abolish every entity's entire portfolio of software patents tomorrow, we would jump at the chance. But it isn't possible for a software license such as the GNU GPL to achieve such a result. We do, however, hope that GPL v3 can solve a part of the patent problem. The FSF is now negotiating with organizations holding substantial patent inventories, trying to mediate between their conflicting "extreme" positions. We hope to work out the precise details of the explicit patent license so as to free software developers from patent aggression under a substantial fraction of software patents. To fully protect software developers and users from software patents will, however, require changes in patent law. === --Ken.
Re: Licensing was Re: [freenet-support] Freenet status report 26/09/06
Brandon Low wrote: Well, it's moot any way, since I have no applicable code, but you are right, it doesn't impact Freenet the same way that it does Linux, my concern is more one of compatibility with GPL2 distributions as discussed in the linux kernel position statement. The GPL3, as the GPL2 is often accused of being, but is not in practice, is a viral license, that is that there are some cases in which as written, it would require a user of the license to release _other_ property under a compatible license. This is untrue, and a serious misunderstanding of GPLv3. The fact that it is being propagated as FUD frankly astounds me. From the FSF's clarification (http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3-clarification): === 2. In order to honor freedom 0, your freedom to run the program as you wish, a free software license may not contain use restrictions that would restrict what you can do with it. Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use restrictions, and the final version won't either. GPLv3 will prohibit certain distribution practices which restrict users' freedom to modify the code. We hope this policy will thwart the ways some companies wish to use free software -- namely, distributing it to you while controlling what you can do with it. This policy is not a use restriction: it doesn't restrict how they, or you, can run the program; it doesn't restrict what they, or you, can make the program do. Rather it ensures you, as a user, are as free as they are. Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company to lose its entire [software] patent portfolio. It simply says that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can't sue the program's subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program. This has no effect on other patents which that program does not implement. Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using software patents. Therefore, if we could abolish every entity's entire portfolio of software patents tomorrow, we would jump at the chance. But it isn't possible for a software license such as the GNU GPL to achieve such a result. We do, however, hope that GPL v3 can solve a part of the patent problem. The FSF is now negotiating with organizations holding substantial patent inventories, trying to mediate between their conflicting extreme positions. We hope to work out the precise details of the explicit patent license so as to free software developers from patent aggression under a substantial fraction of software patents. To fully protect software developers and users from software patents will, however, require changes in patent law. === --Ken. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Moving your node?
I've determined that my SoHo router can't keep up with the UDP traffic freenet produces, and have decided to move my node to somewhere with better connectivity. This will necessitate both an IP change, and a host change (i.e., different system). Further, I'll be moving from a Windows-based system, to a Linux-based one. To this end, what do I have to do to both move my datastore/noderefs/etc to the new server, as well as ensure that my peers know it's me and are still willing to accept my connections? -- Ken Snider
[freenet-support] Moving your node?
I've determined that my SoHo router can't keep up with the UDP traffic freenet produces, and have decided to move my node to somewhere with better connectivity. This will necessitate both an IP change, and a host change (i.e., different system). Further, I'll be moving from a Windows-based system, to a Linux-based one. To this end, what do I have to do to both move my datastore/noderefs/etc to the new server, as well as ensure that my peers know it's me and are still willing to accept my connections? -- Ken Snider ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] XP crashes with high connection count? was [killrbyte@yahoo.com: [freenet-dev] Re: Connection limit set to 60 on XP Home?]
Matthew Toseland wrote: Can anyone confirm this guy's experience? I have *only* seen this issue on Windows when it was an upstream network device causing the toruble - my Dlink at home couldn't handle even 50 connections. I initially suspected XP, but, aside from the stupid 10-half-open connections limit imposed by SP2, I had no reason to believe it was the OS. -- Ken Snider ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Permanent links/Datastore size?
Matthew Toseland wrote: Cool. Freenet probably can't do more than 10Mbps or so though. Interestingly, this node is moving less traffic than my home node (which is on 5Mbps/800kpbs cable). We'll see how it goes as it integrates with the network. You could certainly set up a terabyte datastore. However the in-memory index would be a problem - the bigger the store, the more memory is needed for the index. This will be a bigger problem with 0.7, but there are ways to address it.. Is there a rough estimate as to in-memory index size vs. datastore size? The system has 2GB of memory, so attempting to balance java's innate hunger for memory plus these indexes is likely needed. I've limited the datastore size to 10GB for now, since it's going to take awhile to fill anyway. (interestingly, with a nodeconnections of 200/rtnodemax of 100, and no thread limiting, and with AgressiveHeap enabled, java is trying to allocate 900MB of RAM to operate in - this is significantly more than I had expected.) 2 - For my personal freenet nodes, I'd like to maintain permanent connectivity to this new node I'm creating - what's the best way to do this? I don't see that there is any need to do this. If it's a good node they should keep connections to it anyway. If not, something wierd is happening. You can force them to connect to it by reseeding with just that node's reference. The latter is actually how I seeded the new node. :) 3 - Are there known limitations to running with larger settings? for example, one would assume that threading is not O(1) scalable, etc? Huh? sorry for the ambiguity - I was referring to the fact that it must be known now that there are diminising returns for certain aspects of freenet - for example, running too many threads may have had some overhead I'm not aware of that would actually degrade performance if set too high, etc. -- Ken Snider ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Permanent links/Datastore size?
I've recently obtained long-term access to a Linux server sitting on a 100MBit link that I intend to devote (mostly) to freenet. To this end, I have some questions: 1 - Is there a feasible size limitation to a freenet datastore? Could a setup a terrabyte datastore, for example, or would the key lookup overhead not be worth it? 2 - For my personal freenet nodes, I'd like to maintain permanent connectivity to this new node I'm creating - what's the best way to do this? 3 - Are there known limitations to running with larger settings? for example, one would assume that threading is not O(1) scalable, etc? 4 - What can I do (other than 24/7 operation) to make this node as active and useful a member of freenet as possible? Thanks! -- Ken Snider. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
