Have a look around on the wiki. It's quite possible to run freenet 0.7
from just the jars. You need to get freenet-cvs-snapshot.jar and
freenet-ext.jar, and a JVM, and run java -cp
freenet-cvs-snapshot.jar;freenet-ext.jar freenet.node.Node ...
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 04:50:23AM -, Anonymous vi
Have a look around on the wiki. It's quite possible to run freenet 0.7
from just the jars. You need to get freenet-cvs-snapshot.jar and
freenet-ext.jar, and a JVM, and run java -cp
freenet-cvs-snapshot.jar;freenet-ext.jar freenet.node.Node ...
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 04:50:23AM -, Anonymous vi
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:39:59 +0200, you wrote:
>
> nobody at geonosis.homelinux.net wrote:
>
> > 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
>
On 30 Aug 2006 04:50:23 -, Anonymous via Panta Rhei
> Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. Linux is not an acceptable answer.
> Machine limitations are a major part of that, but other considerations
> that I am not at liberty to discuss are also a factor.
>
> Changing OS is not an option no
nobody at geonosis.homelinux.net wrote:
> 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
>
I suggest linux. There are many versions of it, some of them d
On 30 Aug 2006 04:50:23 -, Anonymous via Panta Rhei
Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. Linux is not an acceptable answer.
Machine limitations are a major part of that, but other considerations
that I am not at liberty to discuss are also a factor.
Changing OS is not an option no matter
Fair enough. Running a node involves trusting people. Running an opennet
node involves trusting total strangers. We can improve on our security
against treachery to a degree, so that you don't have to trust your
peers quite as much, but the more powerful techniques for improving
security, such as p
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:39:59 +0200, you wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> I suggest
Messages from non-subscribers are moderated manually. I was away over
the weekend so the messages didn't get approved until today. Maybe I
should have checked the actual content of the messages...
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:11:03PM +0200, Ortwin Regel wrote:
> Please stop this spam, you fucking id
Please stop this spam, you fucking idiots... :-/
On 29 Aug 2006 13:10:13 -, Fake Name
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote:
> >> Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens
> >> to be on. Freenet
Store files simply cannot be converted as you suggest, because their
contents are encrypted; you can download a site from 0.5 and insert it
into 0.7, if you know the key. You will probably have to generate a new
SSK keypair. You might even be able to spider 0.5 and insert the sites
(with new SSK ke
Fair enough. Running a node involves trusting people. Running an opennet
node involves trusting total strangers. We can improve on our security
against treachery to a degree, so that you don't have to trust your
peers quite as much, but the more powerful techniques for improving
security, such as p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
I suggest linux. There are many versions of it, some of them designed to
run on ve
Messages from non-subscribers are moderated manually. I was away over
the weekend so the messages didn't get approved until today. Maybe I
should have checked the actual content of the messages...
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:11:03PM +0200, Ortwin Regel wrote:
> Please stop this spam, you fucking id
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, urza9814 at gmail.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, but the idea of the way
Store files simply cannot be converted as you suggest, because their
contents are encrypted; you can download a site from 0.5 and insert it
into 0.7, if you know the key. You will probably have to generate a new
SSK keypair. You might even be able to spider 0.5 and insert the sites
(with new SSK ke
Please stop this spam, you fucking idiots... :-/On 29 Aug 2006 13:10:13 -, Fake Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:>> Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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, but the i
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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, but the i
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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, but the i
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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, but the i
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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, but the i
This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
Project Nefarion mixminion server at nefarion.winstonsmith.info. If
you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] For more information about anonymity, see
https://www.winstonsmith.info/pw
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-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] For information about anonymity, see
https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, urza9814 at gmail.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, but the idea of the way
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, urza9814 at gmail.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, but the idea of the way
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, urza9814 at gmail.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, but the idea of the way
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, urza9814 at gmail.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, but the idea of the way
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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, but the i
o: evand at pobox.com, support at freenetproject.org
>To: "urza9814 at gmail.com"
>CC: support at freenetproject.org
>Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
>Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:06:37 -0400
>
>Please justify your assumptions.
>
>There is a lot of data
>
> Really, if you don't trust anyone, you shouldn't be using the internet,
> and you probably should reconsider whether life is worth living. :)
>
I trust a lot of people a little bit. I don't trust many people a lot.
And I've never really become acquainted philosophically with anyone on
freene
On 8/27/06, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote:
> Through the opennet. Which won't exist for, like, a year.
> Hmmm.
Except they won't be using the opennet at all if they're serious
enough about keeping their net and themselves safe that they won't use
IRC to find new connections.
The end result of
m, support at freenetproject.org
> >To: "urza9814 at gmail.com"
> >CC: support at freenetproject.org
> >Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
> >Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:06:37 -0400
> >
> >Please justify your assumptions.
> >
>
>
> Really, if you don't trust anyone, you shouldn't be using the internet,
> and you probably should reconsider whether life is worth living. :)
>
I trust a lot of people a little bit. I don't trust many people a lot.
And I've never really become acquainted philosophically with anyone on
freene
Please justify your assumptions.
There is a lot of data on social networks that says that is not how
they look. I see no reason to believe the social networks a freenet
darknet would be built upon would be different.
Evan
On 8/26/06, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote:
> Yea, but you don't know all t
PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: support@freenetproject.org
>Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
>Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:06:37 -0400
>
>Please justify your assumptions.
>
>There is a lot of data on social networks that says that is not how
OTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], support@freenetproject.org
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: support@freenetproject.org
Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:06:37 -0400
Please justify your assumptions.
There is a lot of d
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, urza9814 at gmail.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, but the idea of the way
e suggestions of what had happened or why the message
> behaved so peculiarly? Incidently the icon was "utitled" when I attempted
> to save it -- my common practice when a mail message appears to be peculiar.
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From:
> > To:
&
Please justify your assumptions.
There is a lot of data on social networks that says that is not how
they look. I see no reason to believe the social networks a freenet
darknet would be built upon would be different.
Evan
On 8/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yea, but you d
On 8/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Through the opennet. Which won't exist for, like, a year.
Hmmm.
Except they won't be using the opennet at all if they're serious
enough about keeping their net and themselves safe that they won't use
IRC to find new connections.
The
6 12:19:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
>
> I agree. I wouldn't want to be the only connection between 2 networks, or
> even one of a small few. I simply don't have the bandwidth. Maybe a T1 or
T3
> could handle it, but not what 90+% of the people
I agree. I wouldn't want to be the only connection between 2 networks, or
even one of a small few. I simply don't have the bandwidth. Maybe a T1 or T3
could handle it, but not what 90+% of the people using freenet would have to
work with.
As I follow these threads I begin to see a core group of
save it -- my common practice when a mail message appears to be peculiar.
> [Original Message]
> From:
> To:
> Date: 8/27/2006 12:19:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
>
> I agree. I wouldn't want to be the only connection between 2 networks,
>>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.
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 s
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, but the idea of the way it currently is
> >>setup is to allow small grou
save it -- my common practice when a mail message appears to be peculiar.
> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 8/27/2006 12:19:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
>
> I agree. I wouldn't want to be the only connecti
I agree. I wouldn't want to be the only connection between 2 networks, or
even one of a small few. I simply don't have the bandwidth. Maybe a T1 or T3
could handle it, but not what 90+% of the people using freenet would have to
work with.
As I follow these threads I begin to see a core group o
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.
Hmmm.
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, but
On 8/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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, but the idea of the way it currently is
>>setup is to allow smal
Through the opennet. Which won't exist for, like, a year.
Hmmm.
On 8/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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.
That is
On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happensto be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no mainnetwork. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently issetup is to allow small groups to connect
On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, urza9814 at gmail.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, but the idea of the way it currently is
> setup is to allow small gr
Thank you for the reply. I'm not looking to be argumentative, and acknowledge
Ian's request to take this to a different board, but must ask why the Freenet
group decide to direct new users to the new alpha 0.7 network instead of the
established 0.5 network before there was an open net? Especia
Thank you for the reply. I'm not looking to be argumentative, and acknowledge
Ian's request to take this to a different board, but must ask why the Freenet
group decide to direct new users to the new alpha 0.7 network instead of the
established 0.5 network before there was an open net? Especia
gt; 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,
> >b
It has around 600 users judging from recent estimates, a fair amount of
content, and a lot of frost chatter. The stable branch was updated
fairly regularly; the purpose of having a separate stable network was so
we could test disruptive network changes. We may in future (after we are
out of 0.7 alp
Doesn't have anything to do with 0.5 as far as I can tell. Except that in
0.5 you don't have to capture PCs to capture people on the network, in
0.7you do, making it quite a bit more secure.
On 8/25/06, Evan Daniel wrote:
>
> On 8/25/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >It should not be
>From: "Evan Daniel"
>Reply-To: evand at pobox.com, support at freenetproject.org
>To: support at freenetproject.org
>Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:55:31 -0400
>
>On 8/25/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
>
It should not be possible to trace them easily. Of course, if his PC gets
captured, that's possible.
On 8/25/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >
> >No, only he is busted.
> >
> How do you figure that? Doesn't he have connections that canthen be traced
> and then the connections of those t
No, only he is busted.
On 8/25/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Except that probably one of your friends knows someone on an other
> network,
> >exchanges refs, and bang!, you've got a big worldwide network again.
> >
> >
>
> Or one of them goes into an IRC chat and exchanges the in
freenetproject.org
> >To: support at freenetproject.org
> >Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
> >Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:54:16 +0200
> >
> >On 8/25/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >From: "Lars Juel Nielsen"
> >>
> >
>It should not be possible to trace them easily. Of course, if his PC gets
>captured, that's possible.
If the person was busted their computer would be captured.
I guess the only safe way is to run freenet from inside an encrypted
(truecrypt or the like) partition or container and just hope fre
On 8/25/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >It should not be possible to trace them easily. Of course, if his PC gets
> >captured, that's possible.
>
> If the person was busted their computer would be captured.
>
> I guess the only safe way is to run freenet from inside an encrypted
> (truecr
>
>No, only he is busted.
>
How do you figure that? Doesn't he have connections that canthen be traced
and then the connections of those traced?
_
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.com/
>
>Except that probably one of your friends knows someone on an other network,
>exchanges refs, and bang!, you've got a big worldwide network again.
>
>
Or one of them goes into an IRC chat and exchanges the information and bang
you're all busted.
___
0) be sure you have Java version 1.5 or 1.6 (1.4 will/should work too)
- type "java -version" in a console and watch the output
1) download these two files into a separate directory you've created forehand:
- http://downloads.freenetproject.org/alpha/freenet-r10260-snapshot.jar
- http:
>From: "Lars Juel Nielsen"
>Reply-To: support at freenetproject.org
>To: support at freenetproject.org
>Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:54:16 +0200
>
>On 8/25/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
>> >From: &q
From: "Evan Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], support@freenetproject.org
To: support@freenetproject.org
Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:55:31 -0400
On 8/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
Doesn't have anything to do with 0.5 as far as I can tell. Except that in 0.5 you don't have to capture PCs to capture people on the network, in 0.7 you do, making it quite a bit more secure.
On 8/25/06, Evan Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It should not be possible to trace them easily. Of course, if his PC gets
>captured, that's possible.
If the person was busted their computer would be captured.
I guess the only safe way is to run freenet from inside an encrypted
(truec
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:37:56 -0400, Juiceman wrote:
>
> 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 t
It should not be possible to trace them easily. Of course, if his PC gets
captured, that's possible.
If the person was busted their computer would be captured.
I guess the only safe way is to run freenet from inside an encrypted
(truecrypt or the like) partition or container and just hope fr
It should not be possible to trace them easily. Of course, if his PC gets captured, that's possible.On 8/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>No, only he is busted.>How do you figure that? Doesn't he have connections that canthen be tracedand then the connections of those traced?_
No, only he is busted.
How do you figure that? Doesn't he have connections that canthen be traced
and then the connections of those traced?
_
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.com/
No, only he is busted.On 8/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:>>Except that probably one of your friends knows someone on an other network,
>exchanges refs, and bang!, you've got a big worldwide network again.>>Or one of them goes into an IRC chat and exchanges the information and
Except that probably one of your friends knows someone on an other network,
exchanges refs, and bang!, you've got a big worldwide network again.
Or one of them goes into an IRC chat and exchanges the information and bang
you're all busted.
t@freenetproject.org
>To: support@freenetproject.org>Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:54:16 +0200>>On 8/25/06,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> >From: "Lars Juel Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
From: "Lars Juel Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: support@freenetproject.org
To: support@freenetproject.org
Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:54:16 +0200
On 8/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
0) be sure you have Java version 1.5 or 1.6 (1.4 will/should work too)
- type "java -version" in a console and watch the output
1) download these two files into a separate directory you've created forehand:
- http://downloads.freenetproject.org/alpha/freenet-r10260-snapshot.jar
- http:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:37:56 -0400, Juiceman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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
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 som
On 8/25/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
> >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 some
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
It has around 600 users judging from recent estimates, a fair amount of
content, and a lot of frost chatter. The stable branch was updated
fairly regularly; the purpose of having a separate stable network was so
we could test disruptive network changes. We may in future (after we are
out of 0.7 alp
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
This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
Project Nefarion mixminion server at nefarion.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.winstonsmi
>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 ad
rt 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 mig
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 othe
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.in
ormation, 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?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
gt; 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
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 tric
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
usi
roups 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
> &
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
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
