> I see there a vicious circle coming up, which I don't really like.
>
> Mind, I am not against splitting per se, it might be appropriate for
> *big* files, but why should my 386kb .gif be splitted in two parts?
386kb is pretty big for a GIF.
What is it, animated?
-- Emil
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/5d78bad2/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:21:57PM +0200, Adam Wern wrote:
> Two questions
>
> 1. Does redundancy make streaming content from freenet impossible?
> (I mean without having the whole file in store) Or has it never
> been possible?
It doesn't have to, I guess it depends on the scheme used.
Two questions
1. Does redundancy make streaming content from freenet impossible?
(I mean without having the whole file in store) Or has it never
been possible?
2. Will our redundancy recreate the all missing parts and put them
in store, or will it just keep the downloaded minimum
68F 5B2D C368 3BCA 36D7 CF28
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/3a1ad387/attachment.pgp>
DF12 E72F B68F 5B2D C368 3BCA 36D7 CF28
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/4be637fe/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:02:24AM -0700, Patrick Oscar Boykin wrote:
<>
> To sum it up, in the above example, with a freenet with 99% success
> rate, and 2MB splitfiles, an ISO image can be successfully downloaded
> with probability 0.38% (yes, that's less than 1% not 38%), on the other
> hand,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:07:23AM +0100, toad wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:07:51AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
< >
> > I don't believe there has been any significant questioning of redundant
> > splitting since more than a year ago. The hit against network
> > performance because there
> > I see there a vicious circle coming up, which I don't really like.
> >
> > Mind, I am not against splitting per se, it might be appropriate for
> > *big* files, but why should my 386kb .gif be splitted in two parts?
>
> 386kb is pretty big for a GIF.
> What is it, animated?
If the
free.
GPG 1536g/B9C5D1F7 fpr:075A A3F7 F70B 1397 345D A67E 70AA 820B A806 F95D
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/28f5451a/attachment.pgp>
Hi everyone,
Please find below (and attached in word) an Assignment of Copyright in
Revisions of Freenet document.
The purpose of this document, modeled on a GNU public license doc
(Assignment of Copyright in Revisions of GNU Classpath, Essential
Libraries for Java), is to transfer individual
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:19:46AM -0500, thelema wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
< >
> > It hardly matters whether retrieval success is 90% or 99%, if you are
> > trying retrieve 100 parts without redundancy you are still fucked (2e-5%
> > or 36% success). In a system where
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:07:51AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:19:46AM -0500, thelema wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> < >
> > > It hardly matters whether retrieval success is 90% or 99%, if you are
> > > trying retrieve 100 parts without
thelema wrote:
> I'm just suprised that everyone now seems to agree that we need
> redundancy when before everyone seemed to be saying "hell no, keep that
> redundancy away", and I had to compromise with a system that allowed
> both redundant and non-redundant usage.
Not everyone agrees on the
Gianni Johansson wrote:
> Now that freetheneo mentions it, I'm thinking that maybe you have a bad
> freenet-ext.jar file.
> I hope it's this simple...
Darn, I compiled it straight from CVS, but moved just the .class files
over (I usually use the -d(-D?) option to compile directly to my
..
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/573477c9/attachment.pgp>
Derek Glidden wrote:
>> I invite anyone with a Distro not listed in the README file to try
>> compiling the source and testing the executables.
>>
>> I'm curious to know if it builds OK on Windows/Cygwin as well.
>
> Builds with no warnings on Solaris 7 with some Makefile mods to do
> -lsocket
/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/30d20f12/attachment.pgp>
ot available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/df49351b/attachment.pgp>
I remember long time ago (1993) there was a
compression program that had the feature of adding a
special checksum which was 2-5% of the size of the
file and then could restore a rather significan number
of missing or corrupt segments.
I remember personally zeroing out 100 disk sectors of
a file
159A FA02 DF12 E72F B68F 5B2D C368 3BCA 36D7 CF28
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/3508db3a/attachment.pgp>
comhttp://pobox.com/~boykinICQ: 5118680
Key fingerprint = 159A FA02 DF12 E72F B68F 5B2D C368 3BCA 36D7 CF28
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/a4e3b027/attachment.pgp>
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 05:23:36PM -0500, thelema wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2001, Ian Clarke wrote:
< >
> > It is nothing to do with having something published in Freenet, it is
> > the simple mathematics of it. See GJs freesite.
> >
> I've read the freesite. That argument was proposed when this
ove something, set it free.
GPG 1536g/B9C5D1F7 fpr:075A A3F7 F70B 1397 345D A67E 70AA 820B A806 F95D
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/72e6275e/attachment.pgp>
1F7 fpr:075A A3F7 F70B 1397 345D A67E 70AA 820B A806 F95D
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/3493e12b/attachment.pgp>
mething, set it free.
GPG 1536g/B9C5D1F7 fpr:075A A3F7 F70B 1397 345D A67E 70AA 820B A806 F95D
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/fd117a0d/attachment.pgp>
Jay Oliveri wrote:
>
> It's been confirmed FCPtools now work on FreeBSD.
>
> I invite anyone with a Distro not listed in the README file to try
> compiling the source and testing the executables.
>
> I'm curious to know if it builds OK on Windows/Cygwin as well.
Builds with no warnings on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Caused by: java.util.MissingResourceException: Can't find bundle for
>base name javax.servlet.http.LocalStrings, locale de_DE
I got this error with an old snapshot but it's now fixed since freenet-ext.jar
includes "LocalStrings.properties" in 'javax' and in
On Tuesday 09 October 2001 11:02 pm, Jay Oliveri wrote:
> I'm curious to know if it builds OK on Windows/Cygwin as well.
To clarify, I want to know if running ./configure, make and make
install will work in Win/Cygwin.
--
Jay Oliveri "In the land of the blind,
It's been confirmed FCPtools now work on FreeBSD.
I invite anyone with a Distro not listed in the README file to try
compiling the source and testing the executables.
I'm curious to know if it builds OK on Windows/Cygwin as well.
--
Jay Oliveri "In the land of
Derek Glidden wrote:
I invite anyone with a Distro not listed in the README file to try
compiling the source and testing the executables.
I'm curious to know if it builds OK on Windows/Cygwin as well.
Builds with no warnings on Solaris 7 with some Makefile mods to do
-lsocket and -lnsl.
Gianni Johansson wrote:
Now that freetheneo mentions it, I'm thinking that maybe you have a bad
freenet-ext.jar file.
I hope it's this simple...
Darn, I compiled it straight from CVS, but moved just the .class files
over (I usually use the -d(-D?) option to compile directly to my target
thelema wrote:
I'm just suprised that everyone now seems to agree that we need
redundancy when before everyone seemed to be saying hell no, keep that
redundancy away, and I had to compromise with a system that allowed
both redundant and non-redundant usage.
Not everyone agrees on the
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:19:46AM -0500, thelema wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
It hardly matters whether retrieval success is 90% or 99%, if you are
trying retrieve 100 parts without redundancy you are still fucked (2e-5%
or 36% success). In a system where retrieval
thelema wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2001, Ian Clarke wrote:
Sorry to interrupt your exiting discussion, but I don't consider it that
relevant anyway as:
Both your options coexist/will exist in peace anyway without any FCP. a)
the installer automatically creates MyRef.ref on install and b)it (will
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 08:37:53AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 09:29:15PM -0500, thelema wrote:
Inserting large files is pointless anyway until we get redundant
splitfiles (see GJ's freesite for why).
Weren't you one of the people insisting that we wouldn't need
I see there a vicious circle coming up, which I don't really like.
Mind, I am not against splitting per se, it might be appropriate for
*big* files, but why should my 386kb .gif be splitted in two parts?
386kb is pretty big for a GIF.
What is it, animated?
-- Emil
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:07:51AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:19:46AM -0500, thelema wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
It hardly matters whether retrieval success is 90% or 99%, if you are
trying retrieve 100 parts without redundancy you
I remember long time ago (1993) there was a
compression program that had the feature of adding a
special checksum which was 2-5% of the size of the
file and then could restore a rather significan number
of missing or corrupt segments.
I remember personally zeroing out 100 disk sectors of
a file
I see there a vicious circle coming up, which I don't really like.
Mind, I am not against splitting per se, it might be appropriate for
*big* files, but why should my 386kb .gif be splitted in two parts?
386kb is pretty big for a GIF.
What is it, animated?
If the stupidity of
On Tue, 09 Oct 2001, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:21:24AM -0500, thelema wrote:
I don't understand why it makes more sense for fproxy to give your your
noderef. Can you explain this?
It doesn't nescessarily, that is simply one example of how the FCP
functionality
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Zlatin Balevsky wrote:
I remember long time ago (1993) there was a
compression program that had the feature of adding a
special checksum which was 2-5% of the size of the
file and then could restore a rather significan number
of missing or corrupt segments.
sounds
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:21:57PM +0200, Adam Wern wrote:
Two questions
1. Does redundancy make streaming content from freenet impossible?
(I mean without having the whole file in store) Or has it never
been possible?
It doesn't have to, I guess it depends on the scheme used. If
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Adam Wern wrote:
Two questions
1. Does redundancy make streaming content from freenet impossible?
(I mean without having the whole file in store) Or has it never
been possible?
Depends on what you mean by streaming. If you want any sort of
guaranteed rates,
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Patrick Oscar Boykin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:19:46AM -0500, thelema wrote:
I'd like to clarify my position, which probably seems to be against
redundancy if you just read the above, but I really think that we should
try non-redundant splitfiles and if they
Hi everyone,
Please find below (and attached in word) an Assignment of Copyright in
Revisions of Freenet document.
The purpose of this document, modeled on a GNU public license doc
(Assignment of Copyright in Revisions of GNU Classpath, Essential
Libraries for Java), is to transfer individual
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 02:22:51PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:07:23AM +0100, toad wrote:
But what clients will do, most likely, is request all pieces and use whatever
comes first, improving latency.
Which for all intents and purposes is fine. The real problem
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 02:49:17PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:02:24AM -0700, Patrick Oscar Boykin wrote:
To sum it up, in the above example, with a freenet with 99% success
rate, and 2MB splitfiles, an ISO image can be successfully downloaded
with probability
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Patrick Oscar Boykin wrote:
SNIP
PPS: couldn't this all have been done in userspace? One could easily
make a tool that would allow you to do splitfiles in 0.3 by downloading
some MetaData file which describes where to get all the pieces.
It is. See the metadataspec
Wininstaller updated in http://freenetproject.org/snapshots:
Thanks to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for patches and ideas, they were
welcome and integrated (although not the proposed splashscreen :-))
- Version including Java available (only installed if no Java can be
detected)
- FProxy and Javax
Sebastian == Sebastian Späth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sebastian Wininstaller updated in
Sebastian http://freenetproject.org/snapshots: Thanks to
Sebastian [EMAIL PROTECTED] for patches and ideas, they
Sebastian were welcome and integrated (although not the proposed
51 matches
Mail list logo
