[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
>From: "Lars Juel Nielsen" >to take down a darknet you have to find participants and trick >them to letting you in and then you can start finding out which hosts >are part of it. Wait - Wait - You don't have to be tricked into letting someone in. All they have to do is go to the IRC Chat and advertise they have freenet and want to exchange information with someone. Someone exchanges information with them and they in. Or are you saying everyone who joined was tricked into joining Freenet in the first place? I guess you mean there will be all these small darknets of people who are isolated from the rest of the wrold because they don't know anyone they can trust so they will never give out their node information. If that were the case, I wouldn't be running a freenet server right now. I would be me, with freenet running; an isolated entity within my own darknet, because I've never met anyone who has ever said they were running freenet. _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
On 8/24/06, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote: > opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one > of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but > once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and > inserting what files. So it could be argued that a darknet is much > riskier than an opennet. In a darknet, everyone else pretty much knows > who you are. As soon as one computer on the net gets compromised or > one person decides they don't like what you're doing, you're all > pretty much screwed. I mean, I'm no expert on darknets, but it seems > that if you only have 5 or 10 connections, and you always have the > same connections, and you have IRC logs swapping node refs and, better > yet, the actual node ref...it would be pretty easy to figure out what > nodes host what files. In an opennet, this kind of thing is expected > and protected against. > With 10 connections, the data that could intercepted by one attacker is roughly 10%. The problem is the attacker doesn't know how many connections you have, so you could just be passing on data from any number of connections you have. -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire
Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and inserting what files. So it could be argued that a darknet is much riskier than an opennet. In a darknet, everyone else pretty much knows who you are. As soon as one computer on the net gets compromised or one person decides they don't like what you're doing, you're all pretty much screwed. I mean, I'm no expert on darknets, but it seems that if you only have 5 or 10 connections, and you always have the same connections, and you have IRC logs swapping node refs and, better yet, the actual node ref...it would be pretty easy to figure out what nodes host what files. In an opennet, this kind of thing is expected and protected against. On 8/24/06, Juiceman wrote: > On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > > So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there > > another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover? > > > > > > It is a "darknet" because unless you give out your ref to someone > (like currently on IRC but that will change when 0.7 becomes large > enough for users to know friends using 0.7), it almost impractical to > tell you are even running Freenet. The "open-net" is promiscuous and > is easily mapped. See > http://www.itic.ca/DIC/News/archive.html#2004-05-25 > > They can have your IP address and with an ignorant judge, the RIAA > MPAA etc can serve you a lawsuit for copyright violations (regardless > of whether or not you are infringing.) All they have to do is > convince a technologically ignorant judge that Freenet is like the old > Napster or similar program and they traced "copyrighted material" > coming off your IP address. You are now hiring a lawyer to get the > case dismissed. That is a plausible reason to use a darknet instead > of an open-net here in the "free" West. Now imagine running the > program can get you thrown in jail for "subversive information > spreading" in some Eastern country and they can collect the info just > as quickly with an open-net... A darknet would slow them down > immensely. > > Now you see why open-nets are bad in the long run? > > > -- > I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the > death, your right to say it. - Voltaire > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > -- http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=0t=57;>http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif"/>
Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover? >From: "Evan Daniel" >Reply-To: evand at pobox.com, support at freenetproject.org >To: "diddler4u at hotmail.com" >CC: support at freenetproject.org >Subject: Re: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 >and 0,7 >Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:46:11 -0400 > >On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: >>Evan, >> >>Would you define this statement? "they're (developers) working against a >>very real >>clock." > >Happily. At some point, running Freenet will (likely) become illegal, >assuming current trends continue. This includes in the West. It may >already be in France. It is safe to assume that developing Freenet >will have the same legal status, whatever that may be. > >When that happens, the darknet needs to be sufficiently functional for >development to move off the public net and onto the darknet. If the >darknet can't support a collaborative development effort by then, we >have a real problem. It may or may not be enough to kill Freenet >entirely, but it would be a big enough setback to make data resets and >incompatible versions look rosy by comparison. > >Evan >___ >Support mailing list >Support at freenetproject.org >http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support >Unsubscribe at >http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support >Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe _ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.com/
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
What about a pipe to the 0.5 freenet from 0.7 that allows access to the data? A 1-way street. 0.7 can add data to the 0.7 freenet, but can and to the 0.5 freenet. Only access the data. From what I have gathered, 'inserting' data into freenet is not a quick task. As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a connection, shares node information, the 2 groups don't talk to each other. Making matters worse, the only connection they have is through that one shared connection. There is no redundancy. Am I wrong in this assumption? >From: urza9814 at gmail.com >Reply-To: support at freenetproject.org >To: support at freenetproject.org >Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 >Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:01:46 -0400 > >Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens >to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main >network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is >setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to >everyone else. Pretty much, there's nowhere for the content to go. >It'd be like trying to move everything on the internet to your local >LAN. >That, and it's just a complete program re-write I believe. It's quite >easy to 'convert' the content...open a page, save it, and then >re-upload it. The data stores work differently, and anyways the data >is distributed, so there wouldn't be any easy way to move it over. > >On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: >>I've got a question for the developers. >> >>First a couple of comments. >> >>I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it >>somewhere else I welcome it. >> >>I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. >>I >>don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I do see activity on the router >>port >>for the PC. I didn't much like the idea of asking people to let me access >>Freenet through them, but I did. I still think that is a good idea to gain >>initial access to Freenet, but after that it should go find other nodes >>and >>establish connections to them. I shouldn't have to always rely on the ones >>that were on IRC chat at the time I decided to set up the application. >> >>That said, here is by question. >> >> >From what I've seen here, there is a huge base of Freenet users on 0.5, >>and >>a large amount of content. What I fail to understand is why going to >>version >>0.7 all of that userbase and content was dropped. Why there was no way to >>connect to that Freenet and have access to the users and the content. I've >>tried to think of an example of some other internet application that made >>such a radical change that the entire existing base was dropped, and quite >>frankly I can't come up with one. I've seen application for my PC change >>so >>radically the data from the old application had to be converted before it >>would work, but a migration path was always provided. Developers, why did >>you do that? >> >>I'm new to the Freenet community, and I find it incredulous that years of >>effort involved with building the Freenet community was abandoned >>completely. What you have created is a 0.5 and a 0.7 Freenet; both will >>exist into the future. Just as many security conscious people quit >>upgrading >>PGP after 6.52 because source code was no longer readily available, many >>people will quit upgrading Freenet after 0.5. The difference is with PGP a >>file encrypted with 6.52 can be read by the newer versions. Freenet has >>isolated all of it's previous userbase and content. >> >>There is a saying, "Throwing out the baby with the bath water." You have >>done just that. >> >>_ >>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! >>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ >> >>___ >>Support mailing list >>Support at freenetproject.org >>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support >>Unsubscribe at >>http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support >>Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe >> > > >-- > >http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=0t=57;>border="0" alt="Get Firefox!" title="Get Firefox!" >src="http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif"/> >___ >Support mailing list >Support at freenetproject.org >http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support >Unsubscribe at >http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support >Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe _
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
On 8/24/06, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote: > True, but the opennet isn't illegal. > I'm not in any way saying the darknet shouldn't be added...it's a > great feature...but freenet has always been an opennet, and that > should be done first. People who want a darknet are probably already > using other programs like Waste. If they start thinking about making > the opennet form of freenet illegal, we'll know long before it > happens. And there will be plenty of people (EFF, ACLU, etc) fighting > it. I realize there are other countries where they can't use an > opennet, but like I said, there are other darknet programs out there. > That's not what freenet is. > Apparantly you don't pay attention because it may already be illegal in France due to a recently passed law (and possibly EU soon). In the United States it could be illegal in a heartbeat if Congress knew about it and labeled it a "weapon of terrorists." "It doesn't effect 'my country' atm so why should I care?" is what I am hearing from you. Please correct me if i'm wrong. As far as ACLU and EFF, they can fight to get it back, but it can be taken away for years in the meantime while the courts decide on it. Also with the current lineup of the Supreme Court it is not a slam-dunk that we would get it back... For those of you have never even tried to use 0.7 but are complaining about it: 1. You shouldn't argue until you at least try it. 2. It performs quite well IMO compared to 0.5 3. Almost every app from 0.5 works with 0.7 now (or there is an equivalent program available) 4. It is a complete re-write of almost all the code and uses a dramatically different data format so backwards compatibility is not possible. Move forward. :) -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox- admin at winstonsmith.info. For information about anonymity, see https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it. -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE- Message-type: plaintext (please pardon if this is a duplicate) In <20060824011148.GA25156 at amphibian.dyndns.org> Matthew Toseland wrote: >Why bother even anonymizing your emails if you insist on running an >unsupported (and therefore seriously insecure) operating system? Because that operating system is what I have available. I don't have $300 US to run out and buy XP Pro and become current and more secure, so I have to make do the best I am able and thanks to a hardware firewall and safe practices on my part, This machine IS secure and I defy you or anyone else to prove otherwise. Please, Do NOT suggest switching to Linux, I've tried it and my hardware will not support it's demands. Again, this is a matter of money that unlike SOME people, I don't have a hell of lot of so I therefore make do with what I have, Thus my original statement: >> I will be glad to try it out, once it can be used in win98 Now, back to my original need: is there anyone out there who IS using 0.7 on win98? Will you please (in as exacting detail as possible) give procedures for getting it going? I've searched google and the list archives and tried everything I've found so far to no avail. Thank you for all the help I need. -END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
Evan, Would you define this statement? "they're (developers) working against a very real clock." _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
"As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a connection, shares node information, the 2 groups don't talk to each other. Making matters worse, the only connection they have is through that one shared connection. There is no redundancy. Am I wrong in this assumption?" Yup...pretty much. That's why so many people refuse to switch to 0.7 until there's a working opennet. I'm one of them. With an opennet, you connect to anyone who's online, with multiple connections. Don't have to trade references and you get a lot more connections with no effort. Not totally sure about the 'if the one node linking them dies you lose all that data' part...seems like that's how it'd be handled, but I haven't looked into 0.7 too much...because it has no opennet, so I have no use for it. On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > What about a pipe to the 0.5 freenet from 0.7 that allows access to the > data? A 1-way street. 0.7 can add data to the 0.7 freenet, but can and to > the 0.5 freenet. Only access the data. From what I have gathered, > 'inserting' data into freenet is not a quick task. > > As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node > information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less > than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but > that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a > connection, shares node information, the 2 groups don't talk to each other. > Making matters worse, the only connection they have is through that one > shared connection. There is no redundancy. Am I wrong in this assumption? > > > > > >From: urza9814 at gmail.com > >Reply-To: support at freenetproject.org > >To: support at freenetproject.org > >Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 > >Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:01:46 -0400 > > > >Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens > >to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main > >network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is > >setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to > >everyone else. Pretty much, there's nowhere for the content to go. > >It'd be like trying to move everything on the internet to your local > >LAN. > >That, and it's just a complete program re-write I believe. It's quite > >easy to 'convert' the content...open a page, save it, and then > >re-upload it. The data stores work differently, and anyways the data > >is distributed, so there wouldn't be any easy way to move it over. > > > >On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > >>I've got a question for the developers. > >> > >>First a couple of comments. > >> > >>I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it > >>somewhere else I welcome it. > >> > >>I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. > >>I > >>don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I do see activity on the router > >>port > >>for the PC. I didn't much like the idea of asking people to let me access > >>Freenet through them, but I did. I still think that is a good idea to gain > >>initial access to Freenet, but after that it should go find other nodes > >>and > >>establish connections to them. I shouldn't have to always rely on the ones > >>that were on IRC chat at the time I decided to set up the application. > >> > >>That said, here is by question. > >> > >> >From what I've seen here, there is a huge base of Freenet users on 0.5, > >>and > >>a large amount of content. What I fail to understand is why going to > >>version > >>0.7 all of that userbase and content was dropped. Why there was no way to > >>connect to that Freenet and have access to the users and the content. I've > >>tried to think of an example of some other internet application that made > >>such a radical change that the entire existing base was dropped, and quite > >>frankly I can't come up with one. I've seen application for my PC change > >>so > >>radically the data from the old application had to be converted before it > >>would work, but a migration path was always provided. Developers, why did > >>you do that? > >> > >>I'm new to the Freenet community, and I find it incredulous that years of > >>effort involved with building the Freenet community was abandoned > >>completely. What you have created is a 0.5 and a 0.7 Freenet; both will > >>exist into the future. Just as many security conscious people quit > >>upgrading > >>PGP after 6.52 because source code was no longer readily available, many > >>people will quit upgrading Freenet after 0.5. The difference is with PGP a > >>file encrypted with 6.52 can be read by the newer versions. Freenet has > >>isolated all of it's previous
Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
0.7 is currently darknet only. 0.5 is opennet only. On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there > another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover? > > > >From: "Evan Daniel" > >Reply-To: evand at pobox.com, support at freenetproject.org > >To: "diddler4u at hotmail.com" > >CC: support at freenetproject.org > >Subject: Re: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 > >and 0,7 > >Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:46:11 -0400 > > > >On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > >>Evan, > >> > >>Would you define this statement? "they're (developers) working against a > >>very real > >>clock." > > > >Happily. At some point, running Freenet will (likely) become illegal, > >assuming current trends continue. This includes in the West. It may > >already be in France. It is safe to assume that developing Freenet > >will have the same legal status, whatever that may be. > > > >When that happens, the darknet needs to be sufficiently functional for > >development to move off the public net and onto the darknet. If the > >darknet can't support a collaborative development effort by then, we > >have a real problem. It may or may not be enough to kill Freenet > >entirely, but it would be a big enough setback to make data resets and > >incompatible versions look rosy by comparison. > > > >Evan > >___ > >Support mailing list > >Support at freenetproject.org > >http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > >Unsubscribe at > >http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > >Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > > _ > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! > http://search.msn.com/ > > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > -- http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=0t=57;>http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif"/>
Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > Evan, > > Would you define this statement? "they're (developers) working against a > very real > clock." Happily. At some point, running Freenet will (likely) become illegal, assuming current trends continue. This includes in the West. It may already be in France. It is safe to assume that developing Freenet will have the same legal status, whatever that may be. When that happens, the darknet needs to be sufficiently functional for development to move off the public net and onto the darknet. If the darknet can't support a collaborative development effort by then, we have a real problem. It may or may not be enough to kill Freenet entirely, but it would be a big enough setback to make data resets and incompatible versions look rosy by comparison. Evan
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to everyone else. Pretty much, there's nowhere for the content to go. It'd be like trying to move everything on the internet to your local LAN. That, and it's just a complete program re-write I believe. It's quite easy to 'convert' the content...open a page, save it, and then re-upload it. The data stores work differently, and anyways the data is distributed, so there wouldn't be any easy way to move it over. On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > I've got a question for the developers. > > First a couple of comments. > > I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it > somewhere else I welcome it. > > I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. I > don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I do see activity on the router port > for the PC. I didn't much like the idea of asking people to let me access > Freenet through them, but I did. I still think that is a good idea to gain > initial access to Freenet, but after that it should go find other nodes and > establish connections to them. I shouldn't have to always rely on the ones > that were on IRC chat at the time I decided to set up the application. > > That said, here is by question. > > >From what I've seen here, there is a huge base of Freenet users on 0.5, and > a large amount of content. What I fail to understand is why going to version > 0.7 all of that userbase and content was dropped. Why there was no way to > connect to that Freenet and have access to the users and the content. I've > tried to think of an example of some other internet application that made > such a radical change that the entire existing base was dropped, and quite > frankly I can't come up with one. I've seen application for my PC change so > radically the data from the old application had to be converted before it > would work, but a migration path was always provided. Developers, why did > you do that? > > I'm new to the Freenet community, and I find it incredulous that years of > effort involved with building the Freenet community was abandoned > completely. What you have created is a 0.5 and a 0.7 Freenet; both will > exist into the future. Just as many security conscious people quit upgrading > PGP after 6.52 because source code was no longer readily available, many > people will quit upgrading Freenet after 0.5. The difference is with PGP a > file encrypted with 6.52 can be read by the newer versions. Freenet has > isolated all of it's previous userbase and content. > > There is a saying, "Throwing out the baby with the bath water." You have > done just that. > > _ > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ > > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > -- http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=0t=57;>http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif"/>
[freenet-support] Query
Should not this paragraph say how one gets to it? Is there a Help Site that goes deeper into the questions newbies may have about Freenet, and where people can contribute too? Yes, an unofficial, more elaborate Freenet Help Site was created, to go deeper into the questions newbies may have about the usage and inner-workings of Freenet. It's a wiki, thus everybody can contribute too it. Hm? I be that underline (here) is the link that is so difficult to read in the original location. Wonder if it works in this relocation? (Nope) I must admit I have more trouble finding out how to learn about the system now than I did three or four years ago, acknowledging the site is almost all new. I learned that running the old system via dial-up from an ISP that reboots at least once a day was quite impractical, but I do continue to read some of the chatter on a regular basis (with a very long blank space in the middle of my reading). Nicholas Sturm nicksturm at earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060824/f838f607/attachment.html>
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
I've got a question for the developers. First a couple of comments. I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it somewhere else I welcome it. I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. I don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I do see activity on the router port for the PC. I didn't much like the idea of asking people to let me access Freenet through them, but I did. I still think that is a good idea to gain initial access to Freenet, but after that it should go find other nodes and establish connections to them. I shouldn't have to always rely on the ones that were on IRC chat at the time I decided to set up the application. That said, here is by question. >From what I've seen here, there is a huge base of Freenet users on 0.5, and a large amount of content. What I fail to understand is why going to version 0.7 all of that userbase and content was dropped. Why there was no way to connect to that Freenet and have access to the users and the content. I've tried to think of an example of some other internet application that made such a radical change that the entire existing base was dropped, and quite frankly I can't come up with one. I've seen application for my PC change so radically the data from the old application had to be converted before it would work, but a migration path was always provided. Developers, why did you do that? I'm new to the Freenet community, and I find it incredulous that years of effort involved with building the Freenet community was abandoned completely. What you have created is a 0.5 and a 0.7 Freenet; both will exist into the future. Just as many security conscious people quit upgrading PGP after 6.52 because source code was no longer readily available, many people will quit upgrading Freenet after 0.5. The difference is with PGP a file encrypted with 6.52 can be read by the newer versions. Freenet has isolated all of it's previous userbase and content. There is a saying, "Throwing out the baby with the bath water." You have done just that. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
[freenet-support] Query
Try http://web.archive.org/web/20050312175911/http://www.freenethelp.org/html/FreenetForDummies.html#WikiHeadnote_200 for archived Free Help site >Should not this paragraph say how one gets to it? > > >Is there a Help Site that goes deeper into the questions newbies may >have about Freenet, and where people can contribute too? >Yes, an unofficial, more elaborate ><http://www.freenethelp.org>Freenet Help Site was created, to go >deeper into the questions newbies may have about the usage and >inner-workings of Freenet. It's a wiki, thus everybody can >contribute too it. > > > >Hm? I be that underline (here) is the link that is so difficult to >read in the original location. Wonder if it works in this >relocation? (Nope) > >I must admit I have more trouble finding out how to learn about the >system now than I did three or four years ago, acknowledging the >site is almost all new. > >I learned that running the old system via dial-up from an ISP that >reboots at least once a day was quite impractical, but I do continue >to read some of the chatter on a regular basis (with a very long >blank space in the middle of my reading). > >Nicholas Sturm ><mailto:nicksturm at earthlink.net>nicksturm at earthlink.net >EarthLink Revolves Around You. > > > >___ >Support mailing list >Support at freenetproject.org >http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support >Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support >Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Mel Charters -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060824/55875f47/attachment.html>
Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
On 24 Aug 2006 10:46:58 -0400, Rowland wrote: > A me-too and a summary of the discussion thus far as I see it: > > 1. Breaking backward compatibility is a bad thing. > 2. Saying you won't ever do it again is small comfort. > 3. Providing a migration path would help a lot. > 4. I don't care about the darknet. I don't object to its existence but I have > no interest in it. > 5. I want the opennet! > 6. Backward compatibility between 0.5 and 0.7 looks like a foregone > conclusion at this point. > 7. What we need instead is a migration path from Freenet 0.5 to the 0.7 > opennet. > 8. And we need it badly. This could be a show stopper. > 9. This should be a high priority item. > > Now... what's the migration path gonna be? First of all, it should be noted that there are significant technical reasons that migrating content is difficult. Key size changed from a variable size from (IIRC) 1kB to 1MB to the current version of 32kB for CHKs and 1kB for other keys. Since most content needs bigger keys than that, splitfiles are transparently supported. The result is that the locations of all the files changed. Any data migration plan would have to deal with this, and doing so is a non-trivial project. Specifically, it would require more work on the part of the developers (who are seriously overworked as it is) than it would require of the users to reinsert the content on the new network and modify things as needed. 1 -- yup, I agree. But you were warned long ago it might happen. It did. There were good reasons, and it wasn't done lightly. 2 -- actually, I don't think anyone has said it won't happen again. Just that they will work very very hard to have it not happen before 1.0 gets released, which is still at least a couple years away. 3 -- yes, it would. Please feel free to contribute one. Personally, as a donor to the freenet project, I would prefer my money go toward doing cutting edge research into anonymity, and making the 0.7 version work. 4 -- that's either naive or short-sighted. No matter where you are, it looks likely that opennet won't be a viable option forever. We can't just wait until that happens to produce an answer. Also, darknet has *inherent* security advantages that have been discussed numerous times. 5 -- Yep. So do most of us. Myself included. Getting enough refs is pain when you don't know many people running Freenet (I know exactly 1). Opennet is coming; be patient. There are a lot of reasons not to deploy opennet yet. Most of them boil down to a) darknet is easer to make work well and b) it doesn't yet. Combined with c) most things that improve the darknet performance will help the opennet, it seems reasonable to try to fix the darknet first. 6 -- I think (and hope) it is. 7 -- We have one. Install 0.7, and insert your content into it. The obvious improvement over this would be an easy way for most applications to cross-post content. In fact, I'll bet all most people really need is for Frost to do that, and they can handle freesites etc manually. So please talk to the Frost devs about that, it would be *way* easier than trying to solve the problem at the node level. 8 -- Doesn't appear to be yet. It looks like the darknet is alive and growing, though small. 9 -- I disagree. If you want a file sharing program, go find one. If you want a chat program, go find one. If you want an answer for communicating in an actively hostile environment with legal backing to its hostility, you need Freenet. Except that you don't need 0.5, because that doesn't solve the problem. And you don't even really need 0.7, because it doesn't yet either. What you need is for smart, motivated people to be working hard at finding a solution for you, because AFAICT it doesn't exist yet. And I think that's exactly what the devs are doing. Working on back compatibility would be a huge drain on those resources, and they're working against a very real clock. Evan
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
he problem: > > > > > > > > > > If 0.7 doesn't offer the anonymity and the content, plus it's an > > > > > unstable beta test, > > > > > why would anyone new bother to join the community? > > > > > > > > > > Do you think people are nice enough to offer their time and computers > > > > > to beta test some random highly technical peer to peer application > > > > > that > > > > > completely hogs your computer's resources? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with freenet (even 0.5) is, it just isn't user friendly. > > > > > A person who just stumbles on freenet does not know if it's actually > > > > > going to work. After seeing how slow it is, most people, like myself > > > > > will just get rid of it, not bothering to learn all the > > > > > configurations, > > > > > frost, fuqid, etc. > > > > > > > > > > If you took the time to create a simple, down-to-earth website and > > > > > install program without all the technical jargon, you would double or > > > > > triple your user base. > > > > > > > > > > The only NEW users you're going to get to freenet 0.7 are going to be > > > > > peer-to-peer programming enthusiasts. And how many of those are there > > > > > that don't know about freenet already? > > > > > > > > > > So instead of scaring all potential freenet users away, It would be > > > > > wiser to just ask members of the freenet community to do the beta > > > > > testing, and create a nice user friendly website for 0,5 until 0,7 is > > > > > working. Even I would be willing to help create this website, and I'm > > > > > sure many other people also would volunteer. > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Van > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > Support mailing list > > > > Support at freenetproject.org > > > > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > > > > Unsubscribe at > > > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or > > > > mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > > ___ > > Support mailing list > > Support at freenetproject.org > > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > > Unsubscribe at > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subjectunsubscribe > > > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > -- ___ Support mailing list Support at freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060824/0829dcf5/attachment.html>
Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
A me-too and a summary of the discussion thus far as I see it: 1. Breaking backward compatibility is a bad thing. 2. Saying you won't ever do it again is small comfort. 3. Providing a migration path would help a lot. 4. I don't care about the darknet. I don't object to its existence but I have no interest in it. 5. I want the opennet! 6. Backward compatibility between 0.5 and 0.7 looks like a foregone conclusion at this point. 7. What we need instead is a migration path from Freenet 0.5 to the 0.7 opennet. 8. And we need it badly. This could be a show stopper. 9. This should be a high priority item. Now... what's the migration path gonna be? -- --- My skills and contact info: http://www.blcss.com/contactme.php Public Freenet gateway: http://blcss.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
On Thursday 24 August 2006 05:06, an ominous cow herd wrote: > My question, which has yet to be answered, is why did the Freenet > project break with the previous release model and start directing new > users to the unstable alpha 0.7 release? Because Freenet 0.5 and Freenet 0.7 are two separate applications. They are _not_ different branches of the same application. David -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060824/6e385dbf/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-support] Re: [Tech] Freenet 0.7 build 953
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 15:19, Matthew Toseland wrote: > - Don't start the updater if the wrapper is broken I have problems with this one. I do not run the wrapper - I do want freenet to download new stable versions and then quit. I have the java command that starts freenet in a loop and this suffices to update freenet with much of the wrapper's complexity. It worked fine. I would not object to an 'are you sure' message but to block the operation is not reasonable. Without the wrapper its reasonable for someone to want freenet to download new jars and prep them for execution when the user restarts. Why do we _need_ this reduced flexibility? Ed
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Why bother even anonymizing your emails if you insist on running an unsupported (and therefore seriously insecure) operating system? On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:03:55PM +0200, nobody at dantooine.homelinux.net wrote: > This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith > Project Dantooine mixminion server at Dantooine.winstonsmith.info. If > you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox- > admin at winstonsmith.info. For more information about anonymity, see > https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or > https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it. > > -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE- > Message-type: plaintext > > In Ian Clarke wrote: > >On 22 Aug 2006, at 20:37, an ominous cow herd wrote: > >> You never experienced World War I, but I bet you know something > >> about it. > > > >Yes, but I wouldn't lecture those who had actually experienced it, > >and I think you will find Freenet 0.7 a somewhat more pleasant > >experience than the first world war. > > > > I will be glad to try it out, once it can be used in win98 > -END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE- > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060824/7e90e8ac/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-support] System error 1067
Please try again, nextgens has changed something in the installer that might help. On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:12:20PM +0100, simon gallienne wrote: > Hi there. > > I am new to this so please bear with me. > > I am trying to install Freenet and find I am unable to connect to it. It > appears to have not installed properly and was wondering if I could get some > advice on what to do to be able to install it correctly or if it is how to > fix the error listed below: > > > "Registering .fref file extention" > "Setting up plugins" > A subdirectory or file plugins already exists. > "Detecting tcp port abiability" > "Downloading update.cmd" > "Downloading freenet-ext.jar" > "Downloading freenet-stable-latest.jar" > "Installing the wrapper" > "Registering Freenet as a system service" > wrapper | CreateService failed - The specified service already exists. > (0x431) > The Freenet 0.7 darknet service is starting.. > The Freenet 0.7 darknet service could not be started. > > A system error has occurred. > > System error 1067 has occurred. > > The process terminated unexpectedly. > > "Waiting for freenet to startup" > "Spawing up a browser" > "Downloading jSite" > "Downloading Thaw" > "Downloading Frost" > "Setting Frost up" > "Finished" > > > Many thanks in advance. > > > - > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! > Security Centre. > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060824/ae831dd3/attachment.pgp>
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Choose: 1) 0.5: - the branch stable is in effect the branch unstable. both share the same code, eventhough the 'stable' is called 0.5 and the unstable "pre 0.6" or something like that - unstable (eventhough the branch is called 'stable'): there are still major problems with the routing algorithm IIRC even in the latest CVS - unsupported and utterly unmaintained for NOW SEVERAL YEARS or 2) 0.7: - no unstable branch because the code has to be settled and heavy work is going on, therefore a distinction between stable and unstable is not helpful at this time as both branches would be modified by a new release - unstable - but in the sense of "unfinished", NOT "doesn't work". 0.5 is more "doesn't work" than 0.7 currently is and will ever be - actively supported and maintained. New releases are nearly every other day. Bugfixes and improvements galore (that doesn't mean that 0.5 is bug free - all the known or unknown bugs simply aren't fixed anymore and nobody cares (for a good reason)) make your choice. I already have and won't regret droppiong 0.5 which is, or better was, a horrible monster of software. 0.5 started up in a minute or so, 0.7 in fully operational in less than 5 seconds! (YMMV) --Original Message Text--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:34:25 -0400 0.7 isn't a stable version either. It's a not nearly completed, far from functional version. On 8/23/06, Ortwin Regel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 0.5 isn't a stable version. It's an outdated version that many people happen to use. Of course you can keep using 0.5 and slowly watch it die, or even try to keep it alive. But the freenet team wants you to populate 0.7 so they can improve it. It's unfortunate that it scares away a few users too lazy to run 0.7 but they will come back once it's better and stable. On 8/22/06, an ominous cow herd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think that the 0.5 network needs active coding. It's fine the way it is. It should be stated that there will be no patches or bug fixes for the 0.5 network, but putting it in small print and calling it "unsupported" while directing new users to the alpha 0.7 network just doesn't make sense. The 0.5 network should be called the stable version and 0.7 should be the unstable version, just like it was done in the past. If users ask questions, they should be directed to the wiki. Why the big push to get new users on the 0.7 network while it's still in the alpha stage? On Monday 21 August 2006 14:35, Matthew Toseland wrote: We don't have a big enough team to actively support both. On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 11:31:38PM -0700, an ominous cow herd wrote: I can empathize. Freenet is is one of the first projects that I've seen take a working application and push it aside, while directing new users to an alpha version. The way it would normally be done is listing Freenet 0.5 as the stable version instead of the "unsupported" version, and 0.7 as the alpha version still under development. New users would opt for the stable version. Having new users directed to an alpha version while the stable version is fully functioning is quite strange. On Saturday 19 August 2006 08:11, - wrote: Hi, I think you're making a mistake in forcing new people into the beta test freenet 0.7 instead of the established 0.5. You're forgetting how _highly_ someone new has to be motivated to try freenet, even version 0.5 which works and is not a beta test. Let's think about what would motivate someone... I remember when I found freenet, I installed it spent hours reading over the technical jargon. It was incredible slow. I removed it thinking this is a pile of crap that does not work. Only a few months later, did I again bother to go through this complicated process and after waiting for three days with it on, it finally started working. The reason I spent many hours and went back after throwing it out once, was because I was _highly motivated_ for the anonymity and content. Here's the problem: If 0.7 doesn't offer the anonymity and the content, plus it's an unstable beta test, why would anyone new bother to join the community? Do you think people are nice enough to offer their time and computers to beta test some random highly technical peer to peer application that completely hogs your computer's resources? The problem with freenet (even 0.5) is, it just isn't user friendly. A person who just stumbles on freenet does not know if it's actually going to work. After seeing how slow it is, most people, like myself will just get rid of it, not bothering to learn all the configurations, frost, fuqid, etc. If you
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
I've got a question for the developers. First a couple of comments. I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it somewhere else I welcome it. I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. I don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I do see activity on the router port for the PC. I didn't much like the idea of asking people to let me access Freenet through them, but I did. I still think that is a good idea to gain initial access to Freenet, but after that it should go find other nodes and establish connections to them. I shouldn't have to always rely on the ones that were on IRC chat at the time I decided to set up the application. That said, here is by question. From what I've seen here, there is a huge base of Freenet users on 0.5, and a large amount of content. What I fail to understand is why going to version 0.7 all of that userbase and content was dropped. Why there was no way to connect to that Freenet and have access to the users and the content. I've tried to think of an example of some other internet application that made such a radical change that the entire existing base was dropped, and quite frankly I can't come up with one. I've seen application for my PC change so radically the data from the old application had to be converted before it would work, but a migration path was always provided. Developers, why did you do that? I'm new to the Freenet community, and I find it incredulous that years of effort involved with building the Freenet community was abandoned completely. What you have created is a 0.5 and a 0.7 Freenet; both will exist into the future. Just as many security conscious people quit upgrading PGP after 6.52 because source code was no longer readily available, many people will quit upgrading Freenet after 0.5. The difference is with PGP a file encrypted with 6.52 can be read by the newer versions. Freenet has isolated all of it's previous userbase and content. There is a saying, Throwing out the baby with the bath water. You have done just that. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ___ 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]
Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
A me-too and a summary of the discussion thus far as I see it: 1. Breaking backward compatibility is a bad thing. 2. Saying you won't ever do it again is small comfort. 3. Providing a migration path would help a lot. 4. I don't care about the darknet. I don't object to its existence but I have no interest in it. 5. I want the opennet! 6. Backward compatibility between 0.5 and 0.7 looks like a foregone conclusion at this point. 7. What we need instead is a migration path from Freenet 0.5 to the 0.7 opennet. 8. And we need it badly. This could be a show stopper. 9. This should be a high priority item. Now... what's the migration path gonna be? -- --- My skills and contact info: http://www.blcss.com/contactme.php Public Freenet gateway: http://blcss.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl ___ 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: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
On 24 Aug 2006 10:46:58 -0400, Rowland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A me-too and a summary of the discussion thus far as I see it: 1. Breaking backward compatibility is a bad thing. 2. Saying you won't ever do it again is small comfort. 3. Providing a migration path would help a lot. 4. I don't care about the darknet. I don't object to its existence but I have no interest in it. 5. I want the opennet! 6. Backward compatibility between 0.5 and 0.7 looks like a foregone conclusion at this point. 7. What we need instead is a migration path from Freenet 0.5 to the 0.7 opennet. 8. And we need it badly. This could be a show stopper. 9. This should be a high priority item. Now... what's the migration path gonna be? First of all, it should be noted that there are significant technical reasons that migrating content is difficult. Key size changed from a variable size from (IIRC) 1kB to 1MB to the current version of 32kB for CHKs and 1kB for other keys. Since most content needs bigger keys than that, splitfiles are transparently supported. The result is that the locations of all the files changed. Any data migration plan would have to deal with this, and doing so is a non-trivial project. Specifically, it would require more work on the part of the developers (who are seriously overworked as it is) than it would require of the users to reinsert the content on the new network and modify things as needed. 1 -- yup, I agree. But you were warned long ago it might happen. It did. There were good reasons, and it wasn't done lightly. 2 -- actually, I don't think anyone has said it won't happen again. Just that they will work very very hard to have it not happen before 1.0 gets released, which is still at least a couple years away. 3 -- yes, it would. Please feel free to contribute one. Personally, as a donor to the freenet project, I would prefer my money go toward doing cutting edge research into anonymity, and making the 0.7 version work. 4 -- that's either naive or short-sighted. No matter where you are, it looks likely that opennet won't be a viable option forever. We can't just wait until that happens to produce an answer. Also, darknet has *inherent* security advantages that have been discussed numerous times. 5 -- Yep. So do most of us. Myself included. Getting enough refs is pain when you don't know many people running Freenet (I know exactly 1). Opennet is coming; be patient. There are a lot of reasons not to deploy opennet yet. Most of them boil down to a) darknet is easer to make work well and b) it doesn't yet. Combined with c) most things that improve the darknet performance will help the opennet, it seems reasonable to try to fix the darknet first. 6 -- I think (and hope) it is. 7 -- We have one. Install 0.7, and insert your content into it. The obvious improvement over this would be an easy way for most applications to cross-post content. In fact, I'll bet all most people really need is for Frost to do that, and they can handle freesites etc manually. So please talk to the Frost devs about that, it would be *way* easier than trying to solve the problem at the node level. 8 -- Doesn't appear to be yet. It looks like the darknet is alive and growing, though small. 9 -- I disagree. If you want a file sharing program, go find one. If you want a chat program, go find one. If you want an answer for communicating in an actively hostile environment with legal backing to its hostility, you need Freenet. Except that you don't need 0.5, because that doesn't solve the problem. And you don't even really need 0.7, because it doesn't yet either. What you need is for smart, motivated people to be working hard at finding a solution for you, because AFAICT it doesn't exist yet. And I think that's exactly what the devs are doing. Working on back compatibility would be a huge drain on those resources, and they're working against a very real clock. Evan ___ 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: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
Evan, Would you define this statement? they're (developers) working against a very real clock. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ___ 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] Query
Should not this paragraph say how one gets to it? Is there a Help Site that goes deeper into the questions newbies may have about Freenet, and where people can contribute too?Yes, an unofficial, more elaborate Freenet Help Site was created, to go deeper into the questions newbies may have about the usage and inner-workings of Freenet. It's a wiki, thus everybody can contribute too it. Hm? I be that underline (here) is the link that is so difficult to read in the original location. Wonder if it works in this relocation? (Nope) I must admit I have more trouble finding out how to learn about the system now than I did three or four years ago, acknowledging the site is almost all new. I learned that running the old system via dial-up from an ISP that reboots at least once a day was quite impractical, but I do continue to read some of the chatter on a regular basis (with a very long blank space in the middle of my reading). Nicholas Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] EarthLink Revolves Around You. ___ 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] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to everyone else. Pretty much, there's nowhere for the content to go. It'd be like trying to move everything on the internet to your local LAN. That, and it's just a complete program re-write I believe. It's quite easy to 'convert' the content...open a page, save it, and then re-upload it. The data stores work differently, and anyways the data is distributed, so there wouldn't be any easy way to move it over. On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a question for the developers. First a couple of comments. I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it somewhere else I welcome it. I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. I don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I do see activity on the router port for the PC. I didn't much like the idea of asking people to let me access Freenet through them, but I did. I still think that is a good idea to gain initial access to Freenet, but after that it should go find other nodes and establish connections to them. I shouldn't have to always rely on the ones that were on IRC chat at the time I decided to set up the application. That said, here is by question. From what I've seen here, there is a huge base of Freenet users on 0.5, and a large amount of content. What I fail to understand is why going to version 0.7 all of that userbase and content was dropped. Why there was no way to connect to that Freenet and have access to the users and the content. I've tried to think of an example of some other internet application that made such a radical change that the entire existing base was dropped, and quite frankly I can't come up with one. I've seen application for my PC change so radically the data from the old application had to be converted before it would work, but a migration path was always provided. Developers, why did you do that? I'm new to the Freenet community, and I find it incredulous that years of effort involved with building the Freenet community was abandoned completely. What you have created is a 0.5 and a 0.7 Freenet; both will exist into the future. Just as many security conscious people quit upgrading PGP after 6.52 because source code was no longer readily available, many people will quit upgrading Freenet after 0.5. The difference is with PGP a file encrypted with 6.52 can be read by the newer versions. Freenet has isolated all of it's previous userbase and content. There is a saying, Throwing out the baby with the bath water. You have done just that. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ___ 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] -- HTML a href=http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesamp;id=0amp;t=57;img border=0 alt=Get Firefox! title=Get Firefox! src=http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif//a ___ 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: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evan, Would you define this statement? they're (developers) working against a very real clock. Happily. At some point, running Freenet will (likely) become illegal, assuming current trends continue. This includes in the West. It may already be in France. It is safe to assume that developing Freenet will have the same legal status, whatever that may be. When that happens, the darknet needs to be sufficiently functional for development to move off the public net and onto the darknet. If the darknet can't support a collaborative development effort by then, we have a real problem. It may or may not be enough to kill Freenet entirely, but it would be a big enough setback to make data resets and incompatible versions look rosy by comparison. Evan ___ 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] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
What about a pipe to the 0.5 freenet from 0.7 that allows access to the data? A 1-way street. 0.7 can add data to the 0.7 freenet, but can and to the 0.5 freenet. Only access the data. From what I have gathered, 'inserting' data into freenet is not a quick task. As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a connection, shares node information, the 2 groups don't talk to each other. Making matters worse, the only connection they have is through that one shared connection. There is no redundancy. Am I wrong in this assumption? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: support@freenetproject.org To: support@freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:01:46 -0400 Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to everyone else. Pretty much, there's nowhere for the content to go. It'd be like trying to move everything on the internet to your local LAN. That, and it's just a complete program re-write I believe. It's quite easy to 'convert' the content...open a page, save it, and then re-upload it. The data stores work differently, and anyways the data is distributed, so there wouldn't be any easy way to move it over. On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a question for the developers. First a couple of comments. I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it somewhere else I welcome it. I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. I don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I do see activity on the router port for the PC. I didn't much like the idea of asking people to let me access Freenet through them, but I did. I still think that is a good idea to gain initial access to Freenet, but after that it should go find other nodes and establish connections to them. I shouldn't have to always rely on the ones that were on IRC chat at the time I decided to set up the application. That said, here is by question. From what I've seen here, there is a huge base of Freenet users on 0.5, and a large amount of content. What I fail to understand is why going to version 0.7 all of that userbase and content was dropped. Why there was no way to connect to that Freenet and have access to the users and the content. I've tried to think of an example of some other internet application that made such a radical change that the entire existing base was dropped, and quite frankly I can't come up with one. I've seen application for my PC change so radically the data from the old application had to be converted before it would work, but a migration path was always provided. Developers, why did you do that? I'm new to the Freenet community, and I find it incredulous that years of effort involved with building the Freenet community was abandoned completely. What you have created is a 0.5 and a 0.7 Freenet; both will exist into the future. Just as many security conscious people quit upgrading PGP after 6.52 because source code was no longer readily available, many people will quit upgrading Freenet after 0.5. The difference is with PGP a file encrypted with 6.52 can be read by the newer versions. Freenet has isolated all of it's previous userbase and content. There is a saying, Throwing out the baby with the bath water. You have done just that. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ___ 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] -- HTML a href=http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesamp;id=0amp;t=57;img border=0 alt=Get Firefox! title=Get Firefox! src=http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif//a ___ 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] _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ___ Support mailing list
Re: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover? From: Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], support@freenetproject.org To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: support@freenetproject.org Subject: Re: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0,7 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:46:11 -0400 On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evan, Would you define this statement? they're (developers) working against a very real clock. Happily. At some point, running Freenet will (likely) become illegal, assuming current trends continue. This includes in the West. It may already be in France. It is safe to assume that developing Freenet will have the same legal status, whatever that may be. When that happens, the darknet needs to be sufficiently functional for development to move off the public net and onto the darknet. If the darknet can't support a collaborative development effort by then, we have a real problem. It may or may not be enough to kill Freenet entirely, but it would be a big enough setback to make data resets and incompatible versions look rosy by comparison. Evan ___ 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] _ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.com/ ___ 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] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a connection, shares node information, the 2 groups don't talk to each other. Making matters worse, the only connection they have is through that one shared connection. There is no redundancy. Am I wrong in this assumption? Yup...pretty much. That's why so many people refuse to switch to 0.7 until there's a working opennet. I'm one of them. With an opennet, you connect to anyone who's online, with multiple connections. Don't have to trade references and you get a lot more connections with no effort. Not totally sure about the 'if the one node linking them dies you lose all that data' part...seems like that's how it'd be handled, but I haven't looked into 0.7 too much...because it has no opennet, so I have no use for it. On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about a pipe to the 0.5 freenet from 0.7 that allows access to the data? A 1-way street. 0.7 can add data to the 0.7 freenet, but can and to the 0.5 freenet. Only access the data. From what I have gathered, 'inserting' data into freenet is not a quick task. As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a connection, shares node information, the 2 groups don't talk to each other. Making matters worse, the only connection they have is through that one shared connection. There is no redundancy. Am I wrong in this assumption? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: support@freenetproject.org To: support@freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:01:46 -0400 Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to everyone else. Pretty much, there's nowhere for the content to go. It'd be like trying to move everything on the internet to your local LAN. That, and it's just a complete program re-write I believe. It's quite easy to 'convert' the content...open a page, save it, and then re-upload it. The data stores work differently, and anyways the data is distributed, so there wouldn't be any easy way to move it over. On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a question for the developers. First a couple of comments. I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it somewhere else I welcome it. I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. I don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I do see activity on the router port for the PC. I didn't much like the idea of asking people to let me access Freenet through them, but I did. I still think that is a good idea to gain initial access to Freenet, but after that it should go find other nodes and establish connections to them. I shouldn't have to always rely on the ones that were on IRC chat at the time I decided to set up the application. That said, here is by question. From what I've seen here, there is a huge base of Freenet users on 0.5, and a large amount of content. What I fail to understand is why going to version 0.7 all of that userbase and content was dropped. Why there was no way to connect to that Freenet and have access to the users and the content. I've tried to think of an example of some other internet application that made such a radical change that the entire existing base was dropped, and quite frankly I can't come up with one. I've seen application for my PC change so radically the data from the old application had to be converted before it would work, but a migration path was always provided. Developers, why did you do that? I'm new to the Freenet community, and I find it incredulous that years of effort involved with building the Freenet community was abandoned completely. What you have created is a 0.5 and a 0.7 Freenet; both will exist into the future. Just as many security conscious people quit upgrading PGP after 6.52 because source code was no longer readily available, many people will quit upgrading Freenet after 0.5. The difference is with PGP a file encrypted with 6.52 can be read by the newer versions. Freenet has isolated all of it's previous userbase and content. There is a saying, Throwing out the baby with the bath water. You have done just that. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
Re: [freenet-support] Query
Title: Re: [freenet-support] Query Try http://web.archive.org/web/20050312175911/http://www.freenethelp.org/html/FreenetForDummies.html#WikiHeadnote_200 for archived Free Help site Should not this paragraph say how one gets to it? Is there a Help Site that goes deeper into the questions newbies may have about Freenet, and where people can contribute too? Yes, an unofficial, more elaborate Freenet Help Site was created, to go deeper into the questions newbies may have about the usage and inner-workings of Freenet. It's a wiki, thus everybody can contribute too it. Hm? I be that underline (here) is the link that is so difficult to read in the original location. Wonder if it works in this relocation? (Nope) I must admit I have more trouble finding out how to learn about the system now than I did three or four years ago, acknowledging the site is almost all new. I learned that running the old system via dial-up from an ISP that reboots at least once a day was quite impractical, but I do continue to read some of the chatter on a regular basis (with a very long blank space in the middle of my reading). Nicholas Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] EarthLink Revolves Around You. ___ 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] -- Mel Charters ___ 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] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a connection, shares node information, the 2 groups don't talk to each other. Making matters worse, the only connection they have is through that one shared connection. There is no redundancy. Am I wrong in this assumption? Yup...pretty much. That's why so many people refuse to switch to 0.7 until there's a working opennet. I'm one of them. With an opennet, you connect to anyone who's online, with multiple connections. Don't have to trade references and you get a lot more connections with no effort. What will you do when freenet is made illegal and all the nodes are being harvested and blocked by a national firewall? Then the whole network fall apart, this can not happen with a darknet if it's done right. To take down a darknet you have to find participants and trick them to letting you in and then you can start finding out which hosts are part of it. It's a lot easier, cheaper and faster to take down an opennet than a darknet. Not totally sure about the 'if the one node linking them dies you lose all that data' part...seems like that's how it'd be handled, but I haven't looked into 0.7 too much...because it has no opennet, so I have no use for it. On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about a pipe to the 0.5 freenet from 0.7 that allows access to the data? A 1-way street. 0.7 can add data to the 0.7 freenet, but can and to the 0.5 freenet. Only access the data. From what I have gathered, 'inserting' data into freenet is not a quick task. As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a connection, shares node information, the 2 groups don't talk to each other. Making matters worse, the only connection they have is through that one shared connection. There is no redundancy. Am I wrong in this assumption? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: support@freenetproject.org To: support@freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:01:46 -0400 Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to everyone else. Pretty much, there's nowhere for the content to go. It'd be like trying to move everything on the internet to your local LAN. That, and it's just a complete program re-write I believe. It's quite easy to 'convert' the content...open a page, save it, and then re-upload it. The data stores work differently, and anyways the data is distributed, so there wouldn't be any easy way to move it over. On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a question for the developers. First a couple of comments. I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it somewhere else I welcome it. I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. I don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I do see activity on the router port for the PC. I didn't much like the idea of asking people to let me access Freenet through them, but I did. I still think that is a good idea to gain initial access to Freenet, but after that it should go find other nodes and establish connections to them. I shouldn't have to always rely on the ones that were on IRC chat at the time I decided to set up the application. That said, here is by question. From what I've seen here, there is a huge base of Freenet users on 0.5, and a large amount of content. What I fail to understand is why going to version 0.7 all of that userbase and content was dropped. Why there was no way to connect to that Freenet and have access to the users and the content. I've tried to think of an example of some other internet application that made such a radical change that the entire existing base was dropped, and quite frankly I can't come up with one. I've seen application for my PC change so radically the data from the old application had to be converted before it would work, but a migration path was always provided. Developers, why did you do that? I'm new to the Freenet community, and I find it incredulous that years of effort involved with building the Freenet community was abandoned completely. What you have created is a 0.5 and a 0.7 Freenet; both will exist into the
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
True, but the opennet isn't illegal. I'm not in any way saying the darknet shouldn't be added...it's a great feature...but freenet has always been an opennet, and that should be done first. People who want a darknet are probably already using other programs like Waste. If they start thinking about making the opennet form of freenet illegal, we'll know long before it happens. And there will be plenty of people (EFF, ACLU, etc) fighting it. I realize there are other countries where they can't use an opennet, but like I said, there are other darknet programs out there. That's not what freenet is. On 8/24/06, Lars Juel Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a connection, shares node information, the 2 groups don't talk to each other. Making matters worse, the only connection they have is through that one shared connection. There is no redundancy. Am I wrong in this assumption? Yup...pretty much. That's why so many people refuse to switch to 0.7 until there's a working opennet. I'm one of them. With an opennet, you connect to anyone who's online, with multiple connections. Don't have to trade references and you get a lot more connections with no effort. What will you do when freenet is made illegal and all the nodes are being harvested and blocked by a national firewall? Then the whole network fall apart, this can not happen with a darknet if it's done right. To take down a darknet you have to find participants and trick them to letting you in and then you can start finding out which hosts are part of it. It's a lot easier, cheaper and faster to take down an opennet than a darknet. Not totally sure about the 'if the one node linking them dies you lose all that data' part...seems like that's how it'd be handled, but I haven't looked into 0.7 too much...because it has no opennet, so I have no use for it. On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about a pipe to the 0.5 freenet from 0.7 that allows access to the data? A 1-way street. 0.7 can add data to the 0.7 freenet, but can and to the 0.5 freenet. Only access the data. From what I have gathered, 'inserting' data into freenet is not a quick task. As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a connection, shares node information, the 2 groups don't talk to each other. Making matters worse, the only connection they have is through that one shared connection. There is no redundancy. Am I wrong in this assumption? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: support@freenetproject.org To: support@freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:01:46 -0400 Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to everyone else. Pretty much, there's nowhere for the content to go. It'd be like trying to move everything on the internet to your local LAN. That, and it's just a complete program re-write I believe. It's quite easy to 'convert' the content...open a page, save it, and then re-upload it. The data stores work differently, and anyways the data is distributed, so there wouldn't be any easy way to move it over. On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a question for the developers. First a couple of comments. I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it somewhere else I welcome it. I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. I don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I do see activity on the router port for the PC. I didn't much like the idea of asking people to let me access Freenet through them, but I did. I still think that is a good idea to gain initial access to Freenet, but after that it should go find other nodes and establish connections to them. I shouldn't have to always rely on the ones that were on IRC chat at the time I decided to set up the application. That said, here is by question. From what I've seen here, there is a huge base of Freenet users on 0.5, and a large amount of content. What I fail to understand is why going to version 0.7 all of that userbase and content was
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
From: Lars Juel Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] to take down a darknet you have to find participants and trick them to letting you in and then you can start finding out which hosts are part of it. Wait - Wait - You don't have to be tricked into letting someone in. All they have to do is go to the IRC Chat and advertise they have freenet and want to exchange information with someone. Someone exchanges information with them and they in. Or are you saying everyone who joined was tricked into joining Freenet in the first place? I guess you mean there will be all these small darknets of people who are isolated from the rest of the wrold because they don't know anyone they can trust so they will never give out their node information. If that were the case, I wouldn't be running a freenet server right now. I would be me, with freenet running; an isolated entity within my own darknet, because I've never met anyone who has ever said they were running freenet. _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ ___ 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: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover? It is a darknet because unless you give out your ref to someone (like currently on IRC but that will change when 0.7 becomes large enough for users to know friends using 0.7), it almost impractical to tell you are even running Freenet. The open-net is promiscuous and is easily mapped. See http://www.itic.ca/DIC/News/archive.html#2004-05-25 They can have your IP address and with an ignorant judge, the RIAA MPAA etc can serve you a lawsuit for copyright violations (regardless of whether or not you are infringing.) All they have to do is convince a technologically ignorant judge that Freenet is like the old Napster or similar program and they traced copyrighted material coming off your IP address. You are now hiring a lawyer to get the case dismissed. That is a plausible reason to use a darknet instead of an open-net here in the free West. Now imagine running the program can get you thrown in jail for subversive information spreading in some Eastern country and they can collect the info just as quickly with an open-net... A darknet would slow them down immensely. Now you see why open-nets are bad in the long run? -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire ___ 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] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True, but the opennet isn't illegal. I'm not in any way saying the darknet shouldn't be added...it's a great feature...but freenet has always been an opennet, and that should be done first. People who want a darknet are probably already using other programs like Waste. If they start thinking about making the opennet form of freenet illegal, we'll know long before it happens. And there will be plenty of people (EFF, ACLU, etc) fighting it. I realize there are other countries where they can't use an opennet, but like I said, there are other darknet programs out there. That's not what freenet is. Apparantly you don't pay attention because it may already be illegal in France due to a recently passed law (and possibly EU soon). In the United States it could be illegal in a heartbeat if Congress knew about it and labeled it a weapon of terrorists. It doesn't effect 'my country' atm so why should I care? is what I am hearing from you. Please correct me if i'm wrong. As far as ACLU and EFF, they can fight to get it back, but it can be taken away for years in the meantime while the courts decide on it. Also with the current lineup of the Supreme Court it is not a slam-dunk that we would get it back... For those of you have never even tried to use 0.7 but are complaining about it: 1. You shouldn't argue until you at least try it. 2. It performs quite well IMO compared to 0.5 3. Almost every app from 0.5 works with 0.7 now (or there is an equivalent program available) 4. It is a complete re-write of almost all the code and uses a dramatically different data format so backwards compatibility is not possible. Move forward. :) -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire ___ 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] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
On 8/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Lars Juel Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] to take down a darknet you have to find participants and trick them to letting you in and then you can start finding out which hosts are part of it. Wait - Wait - You don't have to be tricked into letting someone in. All they have to do is go to the IRC Chat and advertise they have freenet and want to exchange information with someone. Someone exchanges information with them and they in. Or are you saying everyone who joined was tricked into joining Freenet in the first place? For now that is true, they could just go on IRC and get connected but I'm talking about in the long run and people who are way too cautious to do something as silly as that. Anyway the IRC thing is just for bootstrapping the main network the devs are trying to create. People who want to have their own private darknets can easily do so too. I guess you mean there will be all these small darknets of people who are isolated from the rest of the wrold because they don't know anyone they can trust so they will never give out their node information. If that were the case, I wouldn't be running a freenet server right now. I would be me, with freenet running; an isolated entity within my own darknet, because I've never met anyone who has ever said they were running freenet. _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ ___ 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] ___ 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] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
On 8/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True, but the opennet isn't illegal. I'm not in any way saying the darknet shouldn't be added...it's a great feature...but freenet has always been an opennet, and that should be done first. People who want a darknet are probably already using other programs like Waste. If they start thinking about making the opennet form of freenet illegal, we'll know long before it happens. And there will be plenty of people (EFF, ACLU, etc) fighting it. I realize there are other countries where they can't use an opennet, but like I said, there are other darknet programs out there. That's not what freenet is. Waste doesn't scale nearly as well as freenet 0.7 so there is a reason to do it. Besides, if we don't get a darknet it'll all be a wasted effort in a few years when they outlaw freenet for some reason which I believe will happen and I'd be surprised if it take more than 5 more years. On 8/24/06, Lars Juel Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a connection, shares node information, the 2 groups don't talk to each other. Making matters worse, the only connection they have is through that one shared connection. There is no redundancy. Am I wrong in this assumption? Yup...pretty much. That's why so many people refuse to switch to 0.7 until there's a working opennet. I'm one of them. With an opennet, you connect to anyone who's online, with multiple connections. Don't have to trade references and you get a lot more connections with no effort. What will you do when freenet is made illegal and all the nodes are being harvested and blocked by a national firewall? Then the whole network fall apart, this can not happen with a darknet if it's done right. To take down a darknet you have to find participants and trick them to letting you in and then you can start finding out which hosts are part of it. It's a lot easier, cheaper and faster to take down an opennet than a darknet. Not totally sure about the 'if the one node linking them dies you lose all that data' part...seems like that's how it'd be handled, but I haven't looked into 0.7 too much...because it has no opennet, so I have no use for it. On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about a pipe to the 0.5 freenet from 0.7 that allows access to the data? A 1-way street. 0.7 can add data to the 0.7 freenet, but can and to the 0.5 freenet. Only access the data. From what I have gathered, 'inserting' data into freenet is not a quick task. As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a connection, shares node information, the 2 groups don't talk to each other. Making matters worse, the only connection they have is through that one shared connection. There is no redundancy. Am I wrong in this assumption? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: support@freenetproject.org To: support@freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:01:46 -0400 Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to everyone else. Pretty much, there's nowhere for the content to go. It'd be like trying to move everything on the internet to your local LAN. That, and it's just a complete program re-write I believe. It's quite easy to 'convert' the content...open a page, save it, and then re-upload it. The data stores work differently, and anyways the data is distributed, so there wouldn't be any easy way to move it over. On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a question for the developers. First a couple of comments. I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it somewhere else I welcome it. I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. I don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I do see activity on the router port for the PC. I didn't much like the idea of asking people to let me access Freenet through them, but I did. I still think that is a good idea to gain initial access to Freenet, but after that it should
Re: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and inserting what files. So it could be argued that a darknet is much riskier than an opennet. In a darknet, everyone else pretty much knows who you are. As soon as one computer on the net gets compromised or one person decides they don't like what you're doing, you're all pretty much screwed. I mean, I'm no expert on darknets, but it seems that if you only have 5 or 10 connections, and you always have the same connections, and you have IRC logs swapping node refs and, better yet, the actual node ref...it would be pretty easy to figure out what nodes host what files. In an opennet, this kind of thing is expected and protected against. On 8/24/06, Juiceman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover? It is a darknet because unless you give out your ref to someone (like currently on IRC but that will change when 0.7 becomes large enough for users to know friends using 0.7), it almost impractical to tell you are even running Freenet. The open-net is promiscuous and is easily mapped. See http://www.itic.ca/DIC/News/archive.html#2004-05-25 They can have your IP address and with an ignorant judge, the RIAA MPAA etc can serve you a lawsuit for copyright violations (regardless of whether or not you are infringing.) All they have to do is convince a technologically ignorant judge that Freenet is like the old Napster or similar program and they traced copyrighted material coming off your IP address. You are now hiring a lawyer to get the case dismissed. That is a plausible reason to use a darknet instead of an open-net here in the free West. Now imagine running the program can get you thrown in jail for subversive information spreading in some Eastern country and they can collect the info just as quickly with an open-net... A darknet would slow them down immensely. Now you see why open-nets are bad in the long run? -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire ___ 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] -- HTML a href=http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesamp;id=0amp;t=57;img border=0 alt=Get Firefox! title=Get Firefox! src=http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif//a ___ 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: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and inserting what files. So it could be argued that a darknet is much riskier than an opennet. In a darknet, everyone else pretty much knows who you are. As soon as one computer on the net gets compromised or one person decides they don't like what you're doing, you're all pretty much screwed. I mean, I'm no expert on darknets, but it seems that if you only have 5 or 10 connections, and you always have the same connections, and you have IRC logs swapping node refs and, better yet, the actual node ref...it would be pretty easy to figure out what nodes host what files. In an opennet, this kind of thing is expected and protected against. With 10 connections, the data that could intercepted by one attacker is roughly 10%. The problem is the attacker doesn't know how many connections you have, so you could just be passing on data from any number of connections you have. -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire ___ 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]
