Re: [freenet-support] getchk getchkfile with or without compression
On Monday 07 June 2010 19:09:43 VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: Matthew Toseland wrote: As I understand it Chomsky defends his copyright quite vigorously (and earns a substantial amount of money from his work). Are you absolutely sure you have the right to distribute that file? Dear Matthew, I understand (while not 100% agree with) your reasons behind disallowing people from talking about anything that is copyrighted and is transferred to another person without permission. However, what you have said there is untrue. In fact you are safe only because Noam Chomsky does not use libel laws to protect oneself, even when it would easily be a winner (such as when he is accused of antisemitism, holocaust denial, etc.) You have already spoken to me about Noam Chosmky and copyright, and i recall quite well that i've told you that he has never used copyright laws to take any individual to court, i have then informed you that there has been a torrent - file sharing site specifically geared to exchanging interviews, books, and other media made by Chomsky. I believe your argument then was that some media company that owns the copyright of his interview or writing may non-the-less take people to court. The reason why i'm writing this is that this list is public and is easily found in search engines, thus when you say things like that on this list it creates an urgan legend and defames Professor Noam Chomsky. I can already see some zionist article: Noam Chomsky, the self-proclaimed anarchist, has been terrorising the people by using the laws that he claims to oppose, in fact even the radical Freenet administrators who allow links to child pornography and terrorism are afraid to even allow a mention of the audio files with his name in them (Matthew Toseland, 2010). Whether you like it or not, toad; by the public that will not know enough about the way Freenet operates you will be seen as one of the people in charge, and as such when you say things on public forum about some specific person it can be used to show the Freenet policy. Please note, i'm not arguing to allow copyright infringement to be advertised on the support lists, far from it; but please do not make statements about individual people's character. Well, can you get a definitive answer on the simple question, is the file in question copyrighted and not legally redistributible? I don't care whether it is Chomsky who owns the copyright or his publisher. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] getchk getchkfile with or without compression
On Saturday 05 June 2010 04:45:55 Dennis Nezic wrote: On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 11:54:42 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:33:09 +0400, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: Dennis Nezic wrote: On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:56:46 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: Is it possible to explicitly state the compression used with GETCHK or GETCHKFILE or GETCHKDDIR from telnet? (I don't think these commands are even possible in fproxy -- getting chk keys without inserting?) When inserting files via fproxy, I think you have to explicitly decide whether to compress or not, but that would easily lead to a different chk key for the same file, if the GETCHK* commands don't do the same thing. Oh, why do we have arbitrary compression anyways, btw? :) (Arbitrary because there is no explicit standard in the specs, as far as I know, which can easily lead to completely different CHKs for the same file across different versions, if the settings are even slightly changed (ie. slightly different compression algorithm/level, or threshold for using it, or explicit user choice, etc.)) Is the massive computer and time overhead really necessary to reduce filesizes by 1%? (I assume jpeg and zip and mpeg4 etc compression algorithms are already good enough? And why the heck is all this massive overhead done THREE times? Are gzip bzip and lzma really all /that/ different??) This question is being asked over and over and over again, mostly by the people who don't bother look for the answer (in the future please at least say that you didn't look for it). Think about the implications of 1% in the network that does not do path folding? This is 1% on every download by every person that goes out multiple hops. So you will be downloading 1% more, but your node will also have to carry 1% more from all the traffic that comes through it. This will also amount to the constant garbage flood attack on the network equivalent to 1% of all the data that is currently being inserted, pushing more content off the network, causing people to retry, and then reinsert more often (with the effects discussed above). In addition to all that, the truth of the matter is that the CPU time is very cheap when it is compared to the network latency. I suppose I can accept that logic -- one end user (the author) suffers while everyone else benefits. But, actually, I think more often then not all that intense cpu-work is completely ignored since none of those general-purpose algorithms can do better than the specific-purpose jpeg/zip/mpeg4/etc. (Assuming a few bytes could be compressed, the metadata overhead negates it.) And as for the reason why there's no standard so far, it's probably because things are still being tweaked. That's probably my biggest complaint. If it was standardized and completely transparent, I might grudgingly accept having to wait an hour to get a chk key, without inserting. But as it currently exists, depending on how you insert, (ie. via telnet, fproxy w or w/o compression, etc) will result in differing CHKs. Personally I'd trash all the compression stuff -- that is not the node's responsibility, IMHO. Like you said in your other email, people already compress their archives, and probably at even higher compression levels? Upon further reflextion, my biggest complaint is actually that GETCHKFILE doesn't work!? I've tried doing it on a couple files, and it never finishes. Ie.: TMCI getchkfile:/pub/speeches/Noam Chomsky - Iraq.mp3 Started compression attempt with GZIP Started compression attempt with BZIP2 Started compression attempt with LZMA Compressed data: codec=1, origSize=7576241, compressedSize=7317992 Completed 0% 0/448 (failed 0, fatally 0, total 448) Completed 0% 0/448 (failed 0, fatally 0, total 448) And it will hang there, (after spending too much time compressing!) for hours (forever). Does it work for you guys? As I understand it Chomsky defends his copyright quite vigorously (and earns a substantial amount of money from his work). Are you absolutely sure you have the right to distribute that file? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] getchk getchkfile with or without compression
Matthew Toseland wrote: As I understand it Chomsky defends his copyright quite vigorously (and earns a substantial amount of money from his work). Are you absolutely sure you have the right to distribute that file? Dear Matthew, I understand (while not 100% agree with) your reasons behind disallowing people from talking about anything that is copyrighted and is transferred to another person without permission. However, what you have said there is untrue. In fact you are safe only because Noam Chomsky does not use libel laws to protect oneself, even when it would easily be a winner (such as when he is accused of antisemitism, holocaust denial, etc.) You have already spoken to me about Noam Chosmky and copyright, and i recall quite well that i've told you that he has never used copyright laws to take any individual to court, i have then informed you that there has been a torrent - file sharing site specifically geared to exchanging interviews, books, and other media made by Chomsky. I believe your argument then was that some media company that owns the copyright of his interview or writing may non-the-less take people to court. The reason why i'm writing this is that this list is public and is easily found in search engines, thus when you say things like that on this list it creates an urgan legend and defames Professor Noam Chomsky. I can already see some zionist article: Noam Chomsky, the self-proclaimed anarchist, has been terrorising the people by using the laws that he claims to oppose, in fact even the radical Freenet administrators who allow links to child pornography and terrorism are afraid to even allow a mention of the audio files with his name in them (Matthew Toseland, 2010). Whether you like it or not, toad; by the public that will not know enough about the way Freenet operates you will be seen as one of the people in charge, and as such when you say things on public forum about some specific person it can be used to show the Freenet policy. Please note, i'm not arguing to allow copyright infringement to be advertised on the support lists, far from it; but please do not make statements about individual people's character. - Volodya -- http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast None of us are free until all of us are free.~ Mihail Bakunin ___ 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:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] getchk getchkfile with or without compression
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:56:46 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: Is it possible to explicitly state the compression used with GETCHK or GETCHKFILE or GETCHKDDIR from telnet? (I don't think these commands are even possible in fproxy -- getting chk keys without inserting?) When inserting files via fproxy, I think you have to explicitly decide whether to compress or not, but that would easily lead to a different chk key for the same file, if the GETCHK* commands don't do the same thing. Oh, why do we have arbitrary compression anyways, btw? :) (Arbitrary because there is no explicit standard in the specs, as far as I know, which can easily lead to completely different CHKs for the same file across different versions, if the settings are even slightly changed (ie. slightly different compression algorithm/level, or threshold for using it, or explicit user choice, etc.)) Is the massive computer and time overhead really necessary to reduce filesizes by 1%? (I assume jpeg and zip and mpeg4 etc compression algorithms are already good enough? And why the heck is all this massive overhead done THREE times? Are gzip bzip and lzma really all /that/ different??) ___ 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:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] getchk getchkfile with or without compression
Dennis Nezic wrote: On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:56:46 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: Is it possible to explicitly state the compression used with GETCHK or GETCHKFILE or GETCHKDDIR from telnet? (I don't think these commands are even possible in fproxy -- getting chk keys without inserting?) When inserting files via fproxy, I think you have to explicitly decide whether to compress or not, but that would easily lead to a different chk key for the same file, if the GETCHK* commands don't do the same thing. Oh, why do we have arbitrary compression anyways, btw? :) (Arbitrary because there is no explicit standard in the specs, as far as I know, which can easily lead to completely different CHKs for the same file across different versions, if the settings are even slightly changed (ie. slightly different compression algorithm/level, or threshold for using it, or explicit user choice, etc.)) Is the massive computer and time overhead really necessary to reduce filesizes by 1%? (I assume jpeg and zip and mpeg4 etc compression algorithms are already good enough? And why the heck is all this massive overhead done THREE times? Are gzip bzip and lzma really all /that/ different??) This question is being asked over and over and over again, mostly by the people who don't bother look for the answer (in the future please at least say that you didn't look for it). Think about the implications of 1% in the network that does not do path folding? This is 1% on every download by every person that goes out multiple hops. So you will be downloading 1% more, but your node will also have to carry 1% more from all the traffic that comes through it. This will also amount to the constant garbage flood attack on the network equivalent to 1% of all the data that is currently being inserted, pushing more content off the network, causing people to retry, and then reinsert more often (with the effects discussed above). In addition to all that, the truth of the matter is that the CPU time is very cheap when it is compared to the network latency. And as for the reason why there's no standard so far, it's probably because things are still being tweaked. - Volodya -- http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast None of us are free until all of us are free.~ Mihail Bakunin ___ 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:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] getchk getchkfile with or without compression
Dennis Nezic wrote: On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:56:46 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: Is it possible to explicitly state the compression used with GETCHK or GETCHKFILE or GETCHKDDIR from telnet? (I don't think these commands are even possible in fproxy -- getting chk keys without inserting?) When inserting files via fproxy, I think you have to explicitly decide whether to compress or not, but that would easily lead to a different chk key for the same file, if the GETCHK* commands don't do the same thing. Oh, why do we have arbitrary compression anyways, btw? :) (Arbitrary because there is no explicit standard in the specs, as far as I know, which can easily lead to completely different CHKs for the same file across different versions, if the settings are even slightly changed (ie. slightly different compression algorithm/level, or threshold for using it, or explicit user choice, etc.)) Is the massive computer and time overhead really necessary to reduce filesizes by 1%? (I assume jpeg and zip and mpeg4 etc compression algorithms are already good enough? And why the heck is all this massive overhead done THREE times? Are gzip bzip and lzma really all /that/ different??) You did hit one good point here, however, and perhaps it should be put in the wiki. There is almost no reason to insert zip, bzip, or other archive types into freenet (unless the format is important for some reason); just insert the tar, the node will compress it the best it can. - Volodya -- http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast None of us are free until all of us are free.~ Mihail Bakunin ___ 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:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] getchk getchkfile with or without compression
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:33:09 +0400, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: Dennis Nezic wrote: On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:56:46 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: Is it possible to explicitly state the compression used with GETCHK or GETCHKFILE or GETCHKDDIR from telnet? (I don't think these commands are even possible in fproxy -- getting chk keys without inserting?) When inserting files via fproxy, I think you have to explicitly decide whether to compress or not, but that would easily lead to a different chk key for the same file, if the GETCHK* commands don't do the same thing. Oh, why do we have arbitrary compression anyways, btw? :) (Arbitrary because there is no explicit standard in the specs, as far as I know, which can easily lead to completely different CHKs for the same file across different versions, if the settings are even slightly changed (ie. slightly different compression algorithm/level, or threshold for using it, or explicit user choice, etc.)) Is the massive computer and time overhead really necessary to reduce filesizes by 1%? (I assume jpeg and zip and mpeg4 etc compression algorithms are already good enough? And why the heck is all this massive overhead done THREE times? Are gzip bzip and lzma really all /that/ different??) This question is being asked over and over and over again, mostly by the people who don't bother look for the answer (in the future please at least say that you didn't look for it). Think about the implications of 1% in the network that does not do path folding? This is 1% on every download by every person that goes out multiple hops. So you will be downloading 1% more, but your node will also have to carry 1% more from all the traffic that comes through it. This will also amount to the constant garbage flood attack on the network equivalent to 1% of all the data that is currently being inserted, pushing more content off the network, causing people to retry, and then reinsert more often (with the effects discussed above). In addition to all that, the truth of the matter is that the CPU time is very cheap when it is compared to the network latency. I suppose I can accept that logic -- one end user (the author) suffers while everyone else benefits. But, actually, I think more often then not all that intense cpu-work is completely ignored since none of those general-purpose algorithms can do better than the specific-purpose jpeg/zip/mpeg4/etc. (Assuming a few bytes could be compressed, the metadata overhead negates it.) And as for the reason why there's no standard so far, it's probably because things are still being tweaked. That's probably my biggest complaint. If it was standardized and completely transparent, I might grudgingly accept having to wait an hour to get a chk key, without inserting. But as it currently exists, depending on how you insert, (ie. via telnet, fproxy w or w/o compression, etc) will result in differing CHKs. Personally I'd trash all the compression stuff -- that is not the node's responsibility, IMHO. Like you said in your other email, people already compress their archives, and probably at even higher compression levels? ___ 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:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] getchk getchkfile with or without compression
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 11:54:42 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:33:09 +0400, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: Dennis Nezic wrote: On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:56:46 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: Is it possible to explicitly state the compression used with GETCHK or GETCHKFILE or GETCHKDDIR from telnet? (I don't think these commands are even possible in fproxy -- getting chk keys without inserting?) When inserting files via fproxy, I think you have to explicitly decide whether to compress or not, but that would easily lead to a different chk key for the same file, if the GETCHK* commands don't do the same thing. Oh, why do we have arbitrary compression anyways, btw? :) (Arbitrary because there is no explicit standard in the specs, as far as I know, which can easily lead to completely different CHKs for the same file across different versions, if the settings are even slightly changed (ie. slightly different compression algorithm/level, or threshold for using it, or explicit user choice, etc.)) Is the massive computer and time overhead really necessary to reduce filesizes by 1%? (I assume jpeg and zip and mpeg4 etc compression algorithms are already good enough? And why the heck is all this massive overhead done THREE times? Are gzip bzip and lzma really all /that/ different??) This question is being asked over and over and over again, mostly by the people who don't bother look for the answer (in the future please at least say that you didn't look for it). Think about the implications of 1% in the network that does not do path folding? This is 1% on every download by every person that goes out multiple hops. So you will be downloading 1% more, but your node will also have to carry 1% more from all the traffic that comes through it. This will also amount to the constant garbage flood attack on the network equivalent to 1% of all the data that is currently being inserted, pushing more content off the network, causing people to retry, and then reinsert more often (with the effects discussed above). In addition to all that, the truth of the matter is that the CPU time is very cheap when it is compared to the network latency. I suppose I can accept that logic -- one end user (the author) suffers while everyone else benefits. But, actually, I think more often then not all that intense cpu-work is completely ignored since none of those general-purpose algorithms can do better than the specific-purpose jpeg/zip/mpeg4/etc. (Assuming a few bytes could be compressed, the metadata overhead negates it.) And as for the reason why there's no standard so far, it's probably because things are still being tweaked. That's probably my biggest complaint. If it was standardized and completely transparent, I might grudgingly accept having to wait an hour to get a chk key, without inserting. But as it currently exists, depending on how you insert, (ie. via telnet, fproxy w or w/o compression, etc) will result in differing CHKs. Personally I'd trash all the compression stuff -- that is not the node's responsibility, IMHO. Like you said in your other email, people already compress their archives, and probably at even higher compression levels? Upon further reflextion, my biggest complaint is actually that GETCHKFILE doesn't work!? I've tried doing it on a couple files, and it never finishes. Ie.: TMCI getchkfile:/pub/speeches/Noam Chomsky - Iraq.mp3 Started compression attempt with GZIP Started compression attempt with BZIP2 Started compression attempt with LZMA Compressed data: codec=1, origSize=7576241, compressedSize=7317992 Completed 0% 0/448 (failed 0, fatally 0, total 448) Completed 0% 0/448 (failed 0, fatally 0, total 448) And it will hang there, (after spending too much time compressing!) for hours (forever). Does it work for you guys? ___ 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:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
[freenet-support] getchk getchkfile with or without compression
Is it possible to explicitly state the compression used with GETCHK or GETCHKFILE or GETCHKDDIR from telnet? (I don't think these commands are even possible in fproxy -- getting chk keys without inserting?) When inserting files via fproxy, I think you have to explicitly decide whether to compress or not, but that would easily lead to a different chk key for the same file, if the GETCHK* commands don't do the same thing. ___ 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:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
