Yes, that is normal. People are downloading files from you. That's how
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Art Charbonneau wrote:
> On my freenet homepage I noticed in the stats that 5 uploads were active
> even though I had not initiated any uploads. Is this normal, or is
Well, the entire point of Freenet is that nobody can know where the data
originated. So if you're asking if there's a way to only get data inserted
by nodes you're friends with - no. That would defeat the purpose of Freenet.
If you're asking if you can only get data that is stored on your friends'
There should be bandwidth limits somewhere in the config file. I'm
using 0.5myself, I'm guessing you're on
0.7, but look around in freenet.conf or whatever configuration files you can
find for some kind of input and output bandwidth limits. I suggest running a
speed test on your connection (just
Ensure that freenet is actually running. Personally I run Linux and Freenet
0.5, but I'm thinking it'll probably be about the same. Just look for and
run 'start-freenet.sh'. It might take a while for that to start up, so give
it a few minutes before trying to get to 127.0.0.1:.
On 6/4/07, Ben
well, unless something's changed in the newer versions (I still use
0.5 for various reasons), that means freenet isn't running. I'm
assuming you are running windows, so make sure the little freenet icon
appears in the system tray, and if so, right click and there should be
an option to view the
You would search for files by either finding them on websites (check
http://localhost: if you haven't already) or using the search
feature of frost.
On 4/30/07, Brent Pugh wrote:
> Hi I was wondering how to set this up and actually what it was. I was
> thinking of using fuqid .how do i
Just wanna post this so there's an answer in the archives:
Turns out I didn't have real java. I had 'JamVM'. Which, despite
running the real java install several times, is still running instead
of java. And it won't let me uninstall it. But I have freenet working
now by putting in the full path
That's not working. One other thing I had to change in the script was
add an 'LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.6.17'...I just threw that in after all the
if loops that set that...but whenever I try running it now it just
gives me this:
[root at localhost freenet]# sh start-freenet.sh
I'm trying to get Freenet 0.5 working, but I'm encountering the following error:
[root at localhost freenet]# sh start-freenet.sh
Sun java detected.
Sun Java 1.4.2 detected.
Starting Freenet now: Command line: java -Xmx128m
Hmm. I commented them out, and now it APPEARS to run fine, but it doesn't.
On 1/4/07, bo-le at web.de wrote:
> try to remove/comment out the LD_ASSUME_KERNEL thingy in the start scripts.
> I use a 18.104.22.168-kernel, both freenet versions (5 and 7) runs proper without
> this und both give me lib
So I had this exact same problem before, and I fixed it by using a
different linux distro (switch from slackware back to Mandriva 2006).
But now I'm on the distro that worked a year later (Mandriva 2007) and
it's no longer working. But I'm a bit smarter now, so I'm hoping I can
get it figured out.
Well, on Linux I know all you have to do is delete the files, it
doesn't run automatically though. On windoze, there's an uninstall
file. So look for an uninstall file, and if you don't have one, just
On 12/6/06, Gabriel Lipson wrote:
> I desperately need to remove freenet from
All the download links on that page are 0.5. If you're on windows hit
the 'freenet-java-webinstall.exe' link, if on linux/unix use the
On 12/19/06, damian alexander wrote:
> hmm , went to that link didnt see a download for 0.5,???
> >From: urza9814 at
You are far from the first person to have a problem with getting node
refs for Freenet 0.7. I'm gonna say what I tell everyone else: Don't
use 0.7. It's pretty much experimental. There's a good reason a large
number of us are holding on to 0.5, a big one for me being that it's a
I'm running 0.5 on Linux.
When I ran 0.5 on WinXP, it hit 100% CPU usage half an hour after I
started it anyways
Mebbe it's a problem in 0.7?
On 10/29/06, Mr. Flibble wrote:
> > It happened before, and it happened again tonight. I got woken up by
> > alarms indicating 100 % CPU
You need to connect to irc.freenode.net with an IRC client, not your
Try mirc, which is available here:
You could also (and I highly recommend this approach) try downloading
Freenet 0.5 instead, which does not require you to manually gather
You do realize that on Limewire ANYONE can see what you search, what
you download, and who you are, right? Limewire makes you create a
username and gives out your IP address. I have found people's exact
street address with just a username and IP. It's not that hard.
Freenet, on the other hand,
Have you thought about that ignoring reset packets thing that was
shown to make it possible to bypass The Great Firewall? I mean, I
don't know too much about it, or if it'd be possible for
freenetbut it might be worth looking in to.
Also just wanna add that I fully support the desire to help
Exactly. The theory of a darknet is you connect to people that you
already know and trust. Now, there's a good chance of getting a
worldwide-net because someone in group A may know and trust someone in
group B, but chances are that not all of group A knows all of group B.
For a real-world
I got nothing. No 'icon', no tags to place an icon, nothing.
On 8/27/06, Nicholas Sturm wrote:
> When I opened the message below all that displayed was an icon. When I
> attempted to save the icon all hell broke loose. My mail client was
> closed. After some attempts I was able to reboot and
Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know
the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the
networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And
wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if
you get this global network of
Through the opennet. Which won't exist for, like, a year.
On 8/26/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
> >>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,
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
"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
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
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
It has no opennet. As far as I'm concerned, it's useless.
On 8/23/06, Ortwin Regel wrote:
> Wrong, it works quite well so it's functional. It's not completed but it
> needs users to progress.
> On 8/24/06, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote:
> 0.7 isn't a stable version either. It's a not
0.7 isn't a stable version either. It's a not nearly completed, far
from functional version.
On 8/23/06, Ortwin Regel 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
My bad. 400 known nodes. Though...I have 50 connections right now and
I'm not doing anything. Not running frost, not surving any sites...all
inbound I guess.
On 8/23/06, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> 400 connections? I hardly ever saw more than 100.
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:09:59AM -0400,
With 0.5's opennet you don't have to exchange node references. At all.
Your node does it for you. And you'll usually have around 400
connections with the default settings. And 0.5 has more content and
probably more users, though I'm not sure on that one.
On 8/23/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com
"Anyway, I won't argue on that because the decision is not in my hands.
The fact is that 0.7 is the only supported version and that it is the
future. Not linking to the current version and gripping to the old one
would be an interesting kind of suicide for a project that's a constant
.7 has very few users, very little content, and no opennet.
It's useless for new users.
And the security that you say is better has yet to be tested. I
wouldn't bet on something that's only been around for a few months vs.
something that's been slowly improving for...well, longer than I've
You really ought to get a second mailing list for the 0.7 network.
Because I'm pretty sure no one here cares until there's an opennet.
On 8/16/06, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Freenet build 947 is now available. This build simply makes 944
> mandatory as of midnight GMT on Monday (the 21st). This
Well, after failing to install Freenet on Slackware, I realized,
Mandrake was the best (in terms of 'just working') Linux distro I'd
ever used up until 10.1 and 2005LE, so I decided to give it another
shot. So far so good. Freenet's running nicely too, once I found the
missing step in the Java
Ok, I think my ISP changed my IP address recently or something,
because my freenet speed suddenly went to hell...and it's not much of
a problem, because my IP only changes once every few months, so I
don't really need to get a redirect or anything. I'm just wondering
though, if I set up another
I'm trying to install freenet on slackware, and I must say it's been
quite annoying so far...I had everything in a freenet folder in my
home directory, but had to copy half the files right into my home
directory anyways because it couldn't find them otherwise...but
anyways, here's my current
Is there any way to get Freenet to run through a proxy? Specifically,
I need it to run through privoxy on my other comp...because this comp
connects through a wired connection to another comp which connects to
my router wirelessly, and I can't use bridge connection (need the
I keep getting connection timeouts, and I think it might be due to the
nature of my internet connection, but I'm not sure how to go about
fixing that. Basically, what I have is a router connected to two
computers, and then this computer is connected through one of those
two by a cable connection.
Mail list logo