[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Matthew Toseland]

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 via Panta Rhei wrote:
> 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
> > >
> > I suggest linux. There are many versions of it, some of them designed to
> > run on very poor hardware with insufficient ram.
> > Money is not an excuse for using a bad OS.
> >
> > Just look for a minimalist linux. There are many good window managers
> > like IceWM (IIRC) which won't demand much memory.
> >
> 
> 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 what.  I have made poor choices due
> to financial limitations and now am locked into those choices for at least
> another 9.85 years.  (and yeah, it sucks to be me.)
> 
> On the other hand, I have seen reports of people successfully running 0.7
> on a Windows 98 computer with little difficulty.  Because of this, I do not
> comprehend the apparent reluctance to divulge the requested help.
> 
> I would consider Entropy except for the fact that it has always been slower
> than shit and has not released a new version in over a year
> 
> 
> ___
> 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: 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Anonymous via Panta Rhei]

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
> >
> I suggest linux. There are many versions of it, some of them designed to
> run on very poor hardware with insufficient ram.
> Money is not an excuse for using a bad OS.
>
> Just look for a minimalist linux. There are many good window managers
> like IceWM (IIRC) which won't demand much memory.
>

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 what.  I have made poor choices due
to financial limitations and now am locked into those choices for at least
another 9.85 years.  (and yeah, it sucks to be me.)

On the other hand, I have seen reports of people successfully running 0.7
on a Windows 98 computer with little difficulty.  Because of this, I do not
comprehend the apparent reluctance to divulge the requested help.

I would consider Entropy except for the fact that it has always been slower
than shit and has not released a new version in over a year

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Evan Daniel]

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 what.  I have made poor choices due
> to financial limitations and now am locked into those choices for at least
> another 9.85 years.  (and yeah, it sucks to be me.)
>
> On the other hand, I have seen reports of people successfully running 0.7
> on a Windows 98 computer with little difficulty.  Because of this, I do not
> comprehend the apparent reluctance to divulge the requested help.

I don't think there's any 'reluctance,' I think it's just that no one
does that, so they're not particularly inclined to offer advice on how
to run something on an OS they don't have.  Have you looked at the
support wiki (I haven't)?  Also, have you described the symptoms of
the problem in detail on this list (at a quick glance I don't see
such, and I'm not going to bother hunting in detail when the
anonymization makes it harder)?

And I confess I'm quite confused by your hardware problems -- if you
had a weird peripheral that Linux didn't like, that wouldn't surprise
me, but I really can't imagine a computer that can run 98 but not
Linux, at least as far as basics like network and non-accelerated
graphics go.  And it can't be a problem of not enough disk / memory /
cpu -- Freenet is *way* more demanding than any minimalist Linux
distro, and likely most non-minimalist ones if you at least chose a wm
that's lighter than KDE or Gnome.  My personal choice would be
Enlightenment, but there are plenty of others, some of them
exceedingly lightweight.

(And yes, I've installed Linux on weird "windows-only" hardware.  It
can be a pain, but it can be done.  Don't get me started on Toshiba
laptops...)

Evan

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Matthew Toseland]

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 via Panta Rhei wrote:
 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 linux. There are many versions of it, some of them designed to
  run on very poor hardware with insufficient ram.
  Money is not an excuse for using a bad OS.
 
  Just look for a minimalist linux. There are many good window managers
  like IceWM (IIRC) which won't demand much memory.
 
 
 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 what.  I have made poor choices due
 to financial limitations and now am locked into those choices for at least
 another 9.85 years.  whine(and yeah, it sucks to be me.)/whine
 
 On the other hand, I have seen reports of people successfully running 0.7
 on a Windows 98 computer with little difficulty.  Because of this, I do not
 comprehend the apparent reluctance to divulge the requested help.
 
 I would consider Entropy except for the fact that it has always been slower
 than shit and has not released a new version in over a year
 
 
 ___
 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]
 

-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
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] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[inverse]

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 designed to 
run on very poor hardware with insufficient ram.
Money is not an excuse for using a bad OS.

Just look for a minimalist linux. There are many good window managers 
like IceWM (IIRC) which won't demand much memory.

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Matthew Toseland]

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 premix routing, are difficult (and so won't be
implemented until 0.8), and rely on the darknet topology to ensure that
they aren't compromized by an attacker impersonating multiple nodes.

BTW this whole conversation has been moved to the chat list.

On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 02:32:43PM -0400, Nicholas Sturm wrote:
> >
> > 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
> freenet.
> 
> Apart from band width perhaps that's why I read the lists, but no longer
> run a node.
-- 
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: 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Matthew Toseland]

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 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 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 not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global
> >>network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
> >>
> >>Ian.
> >>
> >>Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
> >>phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog
> >
> >
> >Ian;
> >
> >0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed.
> >
> >Please urge Toad to deploy open net now
> >
> >thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >___
> >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

-- 
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: 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Ortwin Regel]

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 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 not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global
> >network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
> >
> >Ian.
> >
> >Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
> >phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog
>
>
> Ian;
>
> 0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed.
>
> Please urge Toad to deploy open net now
>
> thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Matthew Toseland]

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 keys) into 0.7 (Obviously there is no security here; you
can tamper with them as much as you like and the only way to check is to
use 0.5). You cannot however bulk migrate 0.5 content from the store.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 12:04:12AM +0200, [Anon] Anon User wrote:
> In <35af28770608241201n680631f1v158485f8cdc4073 at mail.gmail.com> 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 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.
> >
> 
> I don't know enough programming to do this, but I have an idea for a tool:
> 
> Given that a user has an 0.5 node and a new 0.7 node import the data store.
> 
> the tool would read the 0.5 store files, convert them to 0.7 format and then 
> write them
> into the 0.7 store directories.
> 
> Other than that, freesites will have to be saved in their entirety and then 
> inserted 
> into 0.7.  Has FIW been fixed to work with 0.7?  If it has, I'd be willing to 
> help insert
> 0.5 content into 0.7 once I can get 0.7 working on windows98
> 
> I would also want to have enough refs to be able to guaranteed connectivity 
> at all times.
> 
> 
> -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: 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Fake Name]

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 it currently is
>> setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to
>> everyone else.
>
>That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
>network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
>
>Ian.
>
>Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
>phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog


Ian;

0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed.

Please urge Toad to deploy open net now

thanks

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Nomen Nescio]

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 it currently is
>> setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to
>> everyone else.
>
>That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
>network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
>
>Ian.
>
>Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
>phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog


Ian;

0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed.

Please urge Toad to deploy open net now

thanks

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[nobody]

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
https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.

-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext

(please pardon if this is a duplicate)

In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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-
___
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

[[Anon] Anon User]

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/pws or
https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.

-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext

In [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 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.


I don't know enough programming to do this, but I have an idea for a tool:

Given that a user has an 0.5 node and a new 0.7 node import the data store.

the tool would read the 0.5 store files, convert them to 0.7 format and then 
write them
into the 0.7 store directories.

Other than that, freesites will have to be saved in their entirety and then 
inserted 
into 0.7.  Has FIW been fixed to work with 0.7?  If it has, I'd be willing to 
help insert
0.5 content into 0.7 once I can get 0.7 working on windows98

I would also want to have enough refs to be able to guaranteed connectivity at 
all times.


-END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
___
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

[Hartmut Folter]

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 idea of the way it currently is
 setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to
 everyone else.

That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.

Ian.

Ian Clarke: Co-Founder  Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog


Ian;

0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed.

Please urge Toad to deploy open net now

thanks





___
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

[Fake Name]

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 idea of the way it currently is
 setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to
 everyone else.

That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.

Ian.

Ian Clarke: Co-Founder  Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog


Ian;

0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed.

Please urge Toad to deploy open net now

thanks



___
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

[Fake Name]

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 idea of the way it currently is
 setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to
 everyone else.

That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.

Ian.

Ian Clarke: Co-Founder  Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog


Ian;

0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed.

Please urge Toad to deploy open net now

thanks





___
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

[Fake Name]

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 idea of the way it currently is
 setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to
 everyone else.

That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.

Ian.

Ian Clarke: Co-Founder  Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog


Ian;

0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed.

Please urge Toad to deploy open net now

thanks





___
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

[Ortwin Regel]

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 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 not true.Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one globalnetwork, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.Ian.Ian Clarke: Co-Founder  Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blogIan;0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed.Please urge Toad to deploy open net now
thanks___Support mailing listSupport@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.supportUnsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/supportOr mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
___
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

[Matthew Toseland]

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 keys) into 0.7 (Obviously there is no security here; you
can tamper with them as much as you like and the only way to check is to
use 0.5). You cannot however bulk migrate 0.5 content from the store.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 12:04:12AM +0200, [Anon] Anon User wrote:
 In [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 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.
 
 
 I don't know enough programming to do this, but I have an idea for a tool:
 
 Given that a user has an 0.5 node and a new 0.7 node import the data store.
 
 the tool would read the 0.5 store files, convert them to 0.7 format and then 
 write them
 into the 0.7 store directories.
 
 Other than that, freesites will have to be saved in their entirety and then 
 inserted 
 into 0.7.  Has FIW been fixed to work with 0.7?  If it has, I'd be willing to 
 help insert
 0.5 content into 0.7 once I can get 0.7 working on windows98
 
 I would also want to have enough refs to be able to guaranteed connectivity 
 at all times.
 
 
 -END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
 ___
 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]
 

-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
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

[Matthew Toseland]

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 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
  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 not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global
 network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
 
 Ian.
 
 Ian Clarke: Co-Founder  Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
 phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog
 
 
 Ian;
 
 0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed.
 
 Please urge Toad to deploy open net now
 
 thanks
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 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]

-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
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

[inverse]

[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 very poor hardware with insufficient ram.

Money is not an excuse for using a bad OS.

Just look for a minimalist linux. There are many good window managers 
like IceWM (IIRC) which won't demand much memory.


___
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

[Matthew Toseland]

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 premix routing, are difficult (and so won't be
implemented until 0.8), and rely on the darknet topology to ensure that
they aren't compromized by an attacker impersonating multiple nodes.

BTW this whole conversation has been moved to the chat list.

On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 02:32:43PM -0400, Nicholas Sturm wrote:
 
  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
 freenet.
 
 Apart from band width perhaps that's why I read the lists, but no longer
 run a node.
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
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

[Anonymous via Panta Rhei]

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 linux. There are many versions of it, some of them designed to
 run on very poor hardware with insufficient ram.
 Money is not an excuse for using a bad OS.

 Just look for a minimalist linux. There are many good window managers
 like IceWM (IIRC) which won't demand much memory.


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 what.  I have made poor choices due
to financial limitations and now am locked into those choices for at least
another 9.85 years.  whine(and yeah, it sucks to be me.)/whine

On the other hand, I have seen reports of people successfully running 0.7
on a Windows 98 computer with little difficulty.  Because of this, I do not
comprehend the apparent reluctance to divulge the requested help.

I would consider Entropy except for the fact that it has always been slower
than shit and has not released a new version in over a year


___
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

[Evan Daniel]

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 what.  I have made poor choices due
to financial limitations and now am locked into those choices for at least
another 9.85 years.  whine(and yeah, it sucks to be me.)/whine

On the other hand, I have seen reports of people successfully running 0.7
on a Windows 98 computer with little difficulty.  Because of this, I do not
comprehend the apparent reluctance to divulge the requested help.


I don't think there's any 'reluctance,' I think it's just that no one
does that, so they're not particularly inclined to offer advice on how
to run something on an OS they don't have.  Have you looked at the
support wiki (I haven't)?  Also, have you described the symptoms of
the problem in detail on this list (at a quick glance I don't see
such, and I'm not going to bother hunting in detail when the
anonymization makes it harder)?

And I confess I'm quite confused by your hardware problems -- if you
had a weird peripheral that Linux didn't like, that wouldn't surprise
me, but I really can't imagine a computer that can run 98 but not
Linux, at least as far as basics like network and non-accelerated
graphics go.  And it can't be a problem of not enough disk / memory /
cpu -- Freenet is *way* more demanding than any minimalist Linux
distro, and likely most non-minimalist ones if you at least chose a wm
that's lighter than KDE or Gnome.  My personal choice would be
Enlightenment, but there are plenty of others, some of them
exceedingly lightweight.

(And yes, I've installed Linux on weird windows-only hardware.  It
can be a pain, but it can be done.  Don't get me started on Toshiba
laptops...)

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

[Nomen Nescio]

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 idea of the way it currently is
 setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to
 everyone else.

That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.

Ian.

Ian Clarke: Co-Founder  Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog


Ian;

0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed.

Please urge Toad to deploy open net now

thanks



___
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] Freenet 0,5 vs 0,7 moving discussion

[-]

Hi, I'm attempting to move this discussion the the chat list as requested,
I've posted there and looking forward to your replies!


If you're not subscribed you can look at it here:

http://archives.freenetproject.org/list/chat.en.html


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BackGrnd.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1431 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[diddle...@hotmail.com]

Evan,

You are right - there is a lot of data to show that social networks do 
expand in the method being said here, but that data is based on known, 
non-anonymous social networks. In an anonymous network the rule of thumb is 
trust no one.

If an openet is not the solution, neither is posting information with an 
embeded IP number the solution. I don't know how the openet is hackable, 
especially if node connections pr paths through nodes change randomly 
(TOR-like), but with a manually established network it only takes capturing 
1 node and the entire freenet is at risk. I would be more inclined to 
exchange node information with someone if the information were encrypted - 
private/public key. In an anonymous social network I would be more inclined 
to expand that network to others because my node information is encrypted.



>From: "Evan Daniel" 
>Reply-To: 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 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 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 small networks...90% of the data you
>>request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
>>connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
>>connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
>>between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
>>ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
>>networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
>>have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
>>have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
>>good thing.
>>
>>
>>On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel  wrote:
>> > 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 groups to connect without connecting to
>> > > >>everyone else.
>> > > >
>> > > >That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
>>network, not
>> > > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
>> > > >
>> > > >Ian.
>> > >
>> > > Ian,
>> > >
>> > > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one 
>>group
>> > > trades connection information with someone in another group?
>> > >
>> > > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, 
>>another in
>> > > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 
>>freenets. No
>> > > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, 
>>and
>> > > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to 
>>connect to
>> > > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to 
>>their
>> > > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global 
>>network?
>> >
>> > They won't.  But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good
>> > reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of
>> > connected users it will gain a connection to a different network.  And
>> > then you have a global network.  This is what is meant when people say
>> > 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except
>> > for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is
>> > built upon.
>> >
>> > Evan
>> > ___
>> > Support mailing list
>> > Support at freenetproject.org
>> > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
>> > Unsubscribe at 
>>http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Nicholas Sturm]

>
> 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
freenet.

Apart from band width perhaps that's why I read the lists, but no longer
run a node.

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Lars Juel Nielsen]

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 using opennet and getting refs through IRC is the
same, except it's a little easier for both them and the possible
attacker with opennet as it's completely automated.

>
> 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 groups to connect without connecting to
> > >>everyone else.
> > >
> > >That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  network, not
> > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
> > >
> > >Ian.
> >
> > Ian,
> >
> > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group
> > trades connection information with someone in another group?
> >
> > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in
> > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No
> > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and
> > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to
> > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their
> > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network?
> >
> > _
> > 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;> 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

[urza9...@gmail.com]

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 analogy...I don't have a problem hanging out with my
girlfriend and her friends...she has no problem being with me and my
friends...but my friends and her friends would never meet
independently. Perhaps they would become friends with time...and
perhaps people in group A of the darknet would get to know and trust
people in group B of the darknetbut that would take time. I mean,
I know that personally it's gonna take a few years of knowing someone
before I would trust them well enough to talk about the kinda stuff
some people do on freenet. I mean, yea, that time might be lowered by
someone else you trust saying 'they're cool, don't worry about
it'...but still, by the time you have a global network, freenet 1.0 is
gonna be out.

Plus it makes freenet a much better target for government agencies.
Chances are the people you are connected directly to in freenet you
know very well. Chances are the people you know very well live in the
same country as you, if for no other reason than a shared language. So
chances are, if they bust one freenet node, they can bust all
connected nodes.

And that actually made me think of one other thing. If you have a
darknet in, say, Germany, they will most likely all speak German and
upload German files. So how would they get joined to a darknet that
mostly spoke English and uploads English files? Only people who speak
both languages relatively well will bother to connect to both
networks. But they have to not only speak both languages but also know
and trust someone else who speaks the other language. Which seems to
point back to smaller networks connected in few places.


On 8/27/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com  wrote:
> Evan,
>
> You are right - there is a lot of data to show that social networks do
> expand in the method being said here, but that data is based on known,
> non-anonymous social networks. In an anonymous network the rule of thumb is
> trust no one.
>
> If an openet is not the solution, neither is posting information with an
> embeded IP number the solution. I don't know how the openet is hackable,
> especially if node connections pr paths through nodes change randomly
> (TOR-like), but with a manually established network it only takes capturing
> 1 node and the entire freenet is at risk. I would be more inclined to
> exchange node information with someone if the information were encrypted -
> private/public key. In an anonymous social network I would be more inclined
> to expand that network to others because my node information is encrypted.
>
>
>
> >From: "Evan Daniel" 
> >Reply-To: 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 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 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 small networks...90% of the data you
> >>request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
> >>connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
> >>connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
> >>between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
> >>ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
> >>networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
> >>have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
> >>have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
> >>good thing.
> >>
> >>
> >>On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel  wrote:
> >> > 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
> 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Evan Daniel]

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 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 small networks...90% of the data you
> request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
> connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
> connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
> between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
> ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
> networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
> have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
> have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
> good thing.
>
>
> On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel  wrote:
> > 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 groups to connect without connecting to
> > > >>everyone else.
> > > >
> > > >That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  network, 
> > > >not
> > > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
> > > >
> > > >Ian.
> > >
> > > Ian,
> > >
> > > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group
> > > trades connection information with someone in another group?
> > >
> > > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in
> > > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. 
> > > No
> > > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and
> > > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect 
> > > to
> > > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their
> > > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network?
> >
> > They won't.  But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good
> > reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of
> > connected users it will gain a connection to a different network.  And
> > then you have a global network.  This is what is meant when people say
> > 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except
> > for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is
> > built upon.
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> 
> 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"/>
>
>

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[George Orwell]

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 it currently is
>> setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to
>> everyone else.
>
>That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
>network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
>
>Ian.
>
>Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
>phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog


Ian;

0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed.

Please urge Toad to deploy open net now

thanks

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[urza9...@gmail.com]

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 the spamblocker
> (earthlink) had examined the message and found nothing suspicious.  However
> now I found that a message was displayed as shown below.  A similar
> behavior with the message immediately preceding and with the same "i" icon.
> Anyone have some 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: 
> > 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, 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 people that are
> > promoting 0.7 as the way to go. They have ideas about how it will work,
> but
> > so far I haven't seen convincing evidence to show how it's going to
> actually
> > do what they say. I understand 0.7 is in it's infancy, but it's really
> > premature and living in an incubator. It's got a long way to go to be
> able
> > to meet the level of use people are claiming it will have.
> >
> > I was running 0.7, I'm in the process of changing OS on the PC that was
> > running it, but I did not like having to exchange information with
> someone
> > on IRC. It's the first time I've ever had anything to do with IRC, and
> > though some people are IRC advocates I've never been one. I didn't know
> the
> > people I was connecting to at all, and the only reason it didn't bother
> me
> > was because I was simply provide a computer and bandwidth. If I had an
> > agenda, or a real reason to be using freenet, I would never have
> considered
> > giving out information. I was about as anonymous as if I had posted my IP
> > address on Google for everyone to view.
> >
> > It may be called darknet, but someone forgot to turn off the light.
> >
> >
> > >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 small networks...90% of the data you
> > >request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
> > >connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
> > >connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
> > >between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
> > >ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
> > >networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
> > >have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
> > >have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
> > >good thing.
> > >
> > >
> > >On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel  wrote:
> > >>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 groups to connect without connecting to
> > >> > >>everyone else.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global
> > >>network, not
> > >> > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Ian.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ian,
> > >> >
> > >> > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one
> group
> > >> > trades connection information with someone in another group?
> > >> >
> > >> > Hypothetical - A gro

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[diddle...@hotmail.com]

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 people that are 
promoting 0.7 as the way to go. They have ideas about how it will work, but 
so far I haven't seen convincing evidence to show how it's going to actually 
do what they say. I understand 0.7 is in it's infancy, but it's really 
premature and living in an incubator. It's got a long way to go to be able 
to meet the level of use people are claiming it will have.

I was running 0.7, I'm in the process of changing OS on the PC that was 
running it, but I did not like having to exchange information with someone 
on IRC. It's the first time I've ever had anything to do with IRC, and 
though some people are IRC advocates I've never been one. I didn't know the 
people I was connecting to at all, and the only reason it didn't bother me 
was because I was simply provide a computer and bandwidth. If I had an 
agenda, or a real reason to be using freenet, I would never have considered 
giving out information. I was about as anonymous as if I had posted my IP 
address on Google for everyone to view.

It may be called darknet, but someone forgot to turn off the light.


>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 small networks...90% of the data you
>request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
>connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
>connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
>between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
>ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
>networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
>have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
>have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
>good thing.
>
>
>On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel  wrote:
>>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 groups to connect without connecting to
>> > >>everyone else.
>> > >
>> > >That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
>>network, not
>> > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
>> > >
>> > >Ian.
>> >
>> > Ian,
>> >
>> > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group
>> > trades connection information with someone in another group?
>> >
>> > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another 
>>in
>> > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 
>>freenets. No
>> > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, 
>>and
>> > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to 
>>connect to
>> > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their
>> > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global 
>>network?
>>
>>They won't.  But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good
>>reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of
>>connected users it will gain a connection to a different network.  And
>>then you have a global network.  This is what is meant when people say
>>0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except
>>for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is
>>built upon.
>>
>>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
>>
>
>
>--
>
>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

_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Nicholas Sturm]

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 the spamblocker
(earthlink) had examined the message and found nothing suspicious.  However
now I found that a message was displayed as shown below.  A similar
behavior with the message immediately preceding and with the same "i" icon.
Anyone have some 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: 
> 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, 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 people that are 
> promoting 0.7 as the way to go. They have ideas about how it will work,
but 
> so far I haven't seen convincing evidence to show how it's going to
actually 
> do what they say. I understand 0.7 is in it's infancy, but it's really 
> premature and living in an incubator. It's got a long way to go to be
able 
> to meet the level of use people are claiming it will have.
>
> I was running 0.7, I'm in the process of changing OS on the PC that was 
> running it, but I did not like having to exchange information with
someone 
> on IRC. It's the first time I've ever had anything to do with IRC, and 
> though some people are IRC advocates I've never been one. I didn't know
the 
> people I was connecting to at all, and the only reason it didn't bother
me 
> was because I was simply provide a computer and bandwidth. If I had an 
> agenda, or a real reason to be using freenet, I would never have
considered 
> giving out information. I was about as anonymous as if I had posted my IP 
> address on Google for everyone to view.
>
> It may be called darknet, but someone forgot to turn off the light.
>
>
> >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 small networks...90% of the data you
> >request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
> >connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
> >connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
> >between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
> >ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
> >networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
> >have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
> >have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
> >good thing.
> >
> >
> >On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel  wrote:
> >>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 groups to connect without connecting to
> >> > >>everyone else.
> >> > >
> >> > >That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
> >>network, not
> >> > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
> >> > >
> >> > >Ian.
> >> >
> >> > Ian,
> >> >
> >> > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one
group
> >> > trades connection information with someone in another group?
> >> >
> >> > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France,
another 
> >>in
> >> > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 
> >>freenets. No
> >> > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, 
> >>and
> >> > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to 
> >>connect to
> >> > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to
their
> >> > freenet. How will these freenet g

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[diddle...@hotmail.com]

>>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 not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  network, not 
>multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
>
>Ian.

Ian,

How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group 
trades connection information with someone in another group?

Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in 
Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No 
one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and 
they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to 
because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their 
freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network?

_
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.com/

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[urza9...@gmail.com]

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 small networks...90% of the data you
request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
good thing.


On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel  wrote:
> 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 groups to connect without connecting to
> > >>everyone else.
> > >
> > >That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  network, not
> > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
> > >
> > >Ian.
> >
> > Ian,
> >
> > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group
> > trades connection information with someone in another group?
> >
> > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in
> > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No
> > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and
> > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to
> > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their
> > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network?
>
> They won't.  But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good
> reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of
> connected users it will gain a connection to a different network.  And
> then you have a global network.  This is what is meant when people say
> 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except
> for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is
> built upon.
>
> 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
>


-- 

http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=0t=57;>http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif"/>

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[urza9814]

I got nothing. No 'icon', no tags to place an icon, nothing.

On 8/27/06, Nicholas Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 the spamblocker
(earthlink) had examined the message and found nothing suspicious.  However
now I found that a message was displayed as shown below.  A similar
behavior with the message immediately preceding and with the same i icon.
Anyone have some 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: support@freenetproject.org
 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, 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 people that are
 promoting 0.7 as the way to go. They have ideas about how it will work,
but
 so far I haven't seen convincing evidence to show how it's going to
actually
 do what they say. I understand 0.7 is in it's infancy, but it's really
 premature and living in an incubator. It's got a long way to go to be
able
 to meet the level of use people are claiming it will have.

 I was running 0.7, I'm in the process of changing OS on the PC that was
 running it, but I did not like having to exchange information with
someone
 on IRC. It's the first time I've ever had anything to do with IRC, and
 though some people are IRC advocates I've never been one. I didn't know
the
 people I was connecting to at all, and the only reason it didn't bother
me
 was because I was simply provide a computer and bandwidth. If I had an
 agenda, or a real reason to be using freenet, I would never have
considered
 giving out information. I was about as anonymous as if I had posted my IP
 address on Google for everyone to view.

 It may be called darknet, but someone forgot to turn off the light.


 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 small networks...90% of the data you
 request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
 connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
 connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
 between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
 ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
 networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
 have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
 have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
 good thing.
 
 
 On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 small groups to connect without connecting to
   everyone else.
   
   That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global
 network, not
   multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
   
   Ian.
  
   Ian,
  
   How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one
group
   trades connection information with someone in another group?
  
   Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France,
another
 in
   Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7
 freenets. No
   one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group,
 and
   they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to
 connect to
   because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to
their
   freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global
 network?
 
 They won't.  But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good
 reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of
 connected users it will gain a connection to a different network.  And
 then you have a global network.  This is what is meant when people say
 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except
 for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is
 built upon.
 
 Evan
 ___
 Support mailing list
 Support@freenetproject.org
 http://news.gmane.org

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Lars Juel Nielsen]

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 end result of using opennet and getting refs through IRC is the
same, except it's a little easier for both them and the possible
attacker with opennet as it's completely automated.



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 small groups to connect without connecting to
 everyone else.
 
 That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  network, not
 multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
 
 Ian.

 Ian,

 How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group
 trades connection information with someone in another group?

 Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in
 Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No
 one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and
 they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to
 because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their
 freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network?

 _
 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]



--
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]


___
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

[Evan Daniel]

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 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 small networks...90% of the data you
request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
good thing.


On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 small groups to connect without connecting to
  everyone else.
  
  That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  network, not
  multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
  
  Ian.
 
  Ian,
 
  How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group
  trades connection information with someone in another group?
 
  Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in
  Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No
  one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and
  they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to
  because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their
  freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network?

 They won't.  But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good
 reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of
 connected users it will gain a connection to a different network.  And
 then you have a global network.  This is what is meant when people say
 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except
 for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is
 built upon.

 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]



--
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: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[diddler4u]

Evan,

You are right - there is a lot of data to show that social networks do 
expand in the method being said here, but that data is based on known, 
non-anonymous social networks. In an anonymous network the rule of thumb is 
trust no one.


If an openet is not the solution, neither is posting information with an 
embeded IP number the solution. I don't know how the openet is hackable, 
especially if node connections pr paths through nodes change randomly 
(TOR-like), but with a manually established network it only takes capturing 
1 node and the entire freenet is at risk. I would be more inclined to 
exchange node information with someone if the information were encrypted - 
private/public key. In an anonymous social network I would be more inclined 
to expand that network to others because my node information is encrypted.





From: Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 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 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 small networks...90% of the data you
request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
good thing.


On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 small groups to connect without connecting to
  everyone else.
  
  That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
network, not

  multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
  
  Ian.
 
  Ian,
 
  How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one 
group

  trades connection information with someone in another group?
 
  Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, 
another in
  Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 
freenets. No
  one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, 
and
  they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to 
connect to
  because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to 
their
  freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global 
network?


 They won't.  But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good
 reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of
 connected users it will gain a connection to a different network.  And
 then you have a global network.  This is what is meant when people say
 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except
 for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is
 built upon.

 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]



--
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
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[urza9814]

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 analogy...I don't have a problem hanging out with my
girlfriend and her friends...she has no problem being with me and my
friends...but my friends and her friends would never meet
independently. Perhaps they would become friends with time...and
perhaps people in group A of the darknet would get to know and trust
people in group B of the darknetbut that would take time. I mean,
I know that personally it's gonna take a few years of knowing someone
before I would trust them well enough to talk about the kinda stuff
some people do on freenet. I mean, yea, that time might be lowered by
someone else you trust saying 'they're cool, don't worry about
it'...but still, by the time you have a global network, freenet 1.0 is
gonna be out.

Plus it makes freenet a much better target for government agencies.
Chances are the people you are connected directly to in freenet you
know very well. Chances are the people you know very well live in the
same country as you, if for no other reason than a shared language. So
chances are, if they bust one freenet node, they can bust all
connected nodes.

And that actually made me think of one other thing. If you have a
darknet in, say, Germany, they will most likely all speak German and
upload German files. So how would they get joined to a darknet that
mostly spoke English and uploads English files? Only people who speak
both languages relatively well will bother to connect to both
networks. But they have to not only speak both languages but also know
and trust someone else who speaks the other language. Which seems to
point back to smaller networks connected in few places.


On 8/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Evan,

You are right - there is a lot of data to show that social networks do
expand in the method being said here, but that data is based on known,
non-anonymous social networks. In an anonymous network the rule of thumb is
trust no one.

If an openet is not the solution, neither is posting information with an
embeded IP number the solution. I don't know how the openet is hackable,
especially if node connections pr paths through nodes change randomly
(TOR-like), but with a manually established network it only takes capturing
1 node and the entire freenet is at risk. I would be more inclined to
exchange node information with someone if the information were encrypted -
private/public key. In an anonymous social network I would be more inclined
to expand that network to others because my node information is encrypted.



From: Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 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 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 small networks...90% of the data you
request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
good thing.


On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  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 small groups to connect without connecting to
   everyone else.
   
   That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global
network, not
   multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
   
   Ian.
  
   Ian,
  
   How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one
group
   trades connection information with someone in another group?
  
   Hypothetical - A group of people

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 vs 0,7 moving discussion

[-]

Hi, I'm attempting to move this discussion the the chat list as requested,
I've posted there and looking forward to your replies!


If you're not subscribed you can look at it here:

http://archives.freenetproject.org/list/chat.en.html









___
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

[Nicholas Sturm]

 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
freenet.

Apart from band width perhaps that's why I read the lists, but no longer
run a node.

___
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] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Evan Daniel]

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 groups to connect without connecting to
> >>everyone else.
> >
> >That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  network, not
> >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
> >
> >Ian.
>
> Ian,
>
> How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group
> trades connection information with someone in another group?
>
> Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in
> Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No
> one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and
> they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to
> because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their
> freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network?

They won't.  But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good
reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of
connected users it will gain a connection to a different network.  And
then you have a global network.  This is what is meant when people say
0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except
for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is
built upon.

Evan

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[urza9...@gmail.com]

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 the idea of the way it currently is
> >>setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to
> >>everyone else.
> >
> >That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  network, not
> >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
> >
> >Ian.
>
> Ian,
>
> How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group
> trades connection information with someone in another group?
>
> Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in
> Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No
> one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and
> they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to
> because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their
> freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network?
>
> _
> 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"/>

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Ian Clarke]

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 groups to connect without connecting to
> everyone else.

That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.

Ian.

Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Ian Clarke]

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 without connecting toeveryone else. That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.Ian.  		 		Ian Clarke: Co-Founder  Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. 		phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog  ___
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

[urza9814]

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 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 not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  network, not
multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.

Ian.

Ian,

How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group
trades connection information with someone in another group?

Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in
Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No
one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and
they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to
because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their
freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network?

_
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]




--
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: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Evan Daniel]

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 small groups to connect without connecting to
everyone else.

That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  network, not
multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.

Ian.

Ian,

How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group
trades connection information with someone in another group?

Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in
Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No
one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and
they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to
because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their
freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network?


They won't.  But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good
reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of
connected users it will gain a connection to a different network.  And
then you have a global network.  This is what is meant when people say
0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except
for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is
built upon.

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

[diddler4u]

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 people that are 
promoting 0.7 as the way to go. They have ideas about how it will work, but 
so far I haven't seen convincing evidence to show how it's going to actually 
do what they say. I understand 0.7 is in it's infancy, but it's really 
premature and living in an incubator. It's got a long way to go to be able 
to meet the level of use people are claiming it will have.


I was running 0.7, I'm in the process of changing OS on the PC that was 
running it, but I did not like having to exchange information with someone 
on IRC. It's the first time I've ever had anything to do with IRC, and 
though some people are IRC advocates I've never been one. I didn't know the 
people I was connecting to at all, and the only reason it didn't bother me 
was because I was simply provide a computer and bandwidth. If I had an 
agenda, or a real reason to be using freenet, I would never have considered 
giving out information. I was about as anonymous as if I had posted my IP 
address on Google for everyone to view.


It may be called darknet, but someone forgot to turn off the light.



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 small networks...90% of the data you
request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
good thing.


On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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 small groups to connect without connecting to
 everyone else.
 
 That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
network, not

 multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
 
 Ian.

 Ian,

 How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group
 trades connection information with someone in another group?

 Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another 
in
 Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 
freenets. No
 one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, 
and
 they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to 
connect to

 because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their
 freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global 
network?


They won't.  But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good
reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of
connected users it will gain a connection to a different network.  And
then you have a global network.  This is what is meant when people say
0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except
for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is
built upon.

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]




--
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
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at 

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Nicholas Sturm]

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 the spamblocker
(earthlink) had examined the message and found nothing suspicious.  However
now I found that a message was displayed as shown below.  A similar
behavior with the message immediately preceding and with the same i icon.
Anyone have some 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: support@freenetproject.org
 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, 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 people that are 
 promoting 0.7 as the way to go. They have ideas about how it will work,
but 
 so far I haven't seen convincing evidence to show how it's going to
actually 
 do what they say. I understand 0.7 is in it's infancy, but it's really 
 premature and living in an incubator. It's got a long way to go to be
able 
 to meet the level of use people are claiming it will have.

 I was running 0.7, I'm in the process of changing OS on the PC that was 
 running it, but I did not like having to exchange information with
someone 
 on IRC. It's the first time I've ever had anything to do with IRC, and 
 though some people are IRC advocates I've never been one. I didn't know
the 
 people I was connecting to at all, and the only reason it didn't bother
me 
 was because I was simply provide a computer and bandwidth. If I had an 
 agenda, or a real reason to be using freenet, I would never have
considered 
 giving out information. I was about as anonymous as if I had posted my IP 
 address on Google for everyone to view.

 It may be called darknet, but someone forgot to turn off the light.


 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 small networks...90% of the data you
 request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of
 connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than
 connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect
 between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the
 ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual
 networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you
 have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you
 have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a
 good thing.
 
 
 On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 small groups to connect without connecting to
   everyone else.
   
   That is not true.  Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global  
 network, not
   multiple independent networks consisting of small groups.
   
   Ian.
  
   Ian,
  
   How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one
group
   trades connection information with someone in another group?
  
   Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France,
another 
 in
   Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 
 freenets. No
   one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, 
 and
   they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to 
 connect to
   because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to
their
   freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global 
 network?
 
 They won't.  But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good
 reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of
 connected users it will gain a connection to a different network.  And
 then you have a global network.  This is what is meant when people say
 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except
 for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is
 built upon.
 
 Evan
 ___
 Support mailing list
 Support@freenetproject.org
 http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
 Unsubscribe at 
 http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[an ominous cow herd]

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?  Especially since the 
0.7 network is undergoing many changes with several critical bug fixes.

I also hope you understand that there is a large number of dedicated users on 
the 0.5 network that would like to try the new network, but won't if there is 
no open net.

On Thursday 24 August 2006 17:26, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> 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 alpha) test changes on the testnet, but right now we develop
> stuff in SVN, get people to test it from the testing-latest jar, and
> then commit a version bump and deploy the new jar generally.
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:06:51PM -0700, an ominous cow herd wrote:
> > Thank you for the reply.  I was hoping that you might actually answer the
> > other part of the message
> >
> > The past Freenet had two branches, the stable and unstable. ?The unstable
> > branch was the one where active coding was performed. ?The stable branch
> > did not get updated often if at all.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > When I talk of stable and unstable, I'm referring to the the code.  As we
> > can see, the 0.7 network is still undergoing a lot of changes with
> > several critical bug fixes.  The 0.5 network didn't have many changes
> > near the end. The 0.5 network has thousands of user and a lot of content.
> >  What I have heard of the 0.7 network is that it has only a couple
> > hundred users and very little content.
> >
> > ps. There are many others like me who would like to try the 0.7 network,
> > but will not if there is no open net.
> >
> > On Wednesday 23 August 2006 00:34, 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.
> > >
> > > Ian.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
> > > phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog
> >
> > ___
> > 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

[Ortwin Regel]

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 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 freenet
> doesn't
> > write information outside that container, no matter what the OS.
>
> I'm confused... is this supposed to be an argument in favor of 0.5???
>
> 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
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[diddle...@hotmail.com]

>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.
>>
>>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 freenet 
>>doesn't
>>write information outside that container, no matter what the OS.
>
>I'm confused... is this supposed to be an argument in favor of 0.5???
>
>Evan

No it's a discussion about security. Sounds like there are security issues 
in either version. It's just a matter of which security limitations you are 
wanting to accept.

_
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

[Ortwin Regel]

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 traced?
>
> _
> 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
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Ortwin Regel]

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 information and
> bang
> you're all busted.
>
> _
> 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
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Ortwin Regel]

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.

On 8/25/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> >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: "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?
> >>
> >
> >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 get it, freenet is not a worldwide community (openet), it's a bunch of
> private nets (darknets). Instead of growing to be huge like 0.5, 0.7 is
> inherently made to be small, unless you want to advertise on IRC. For now,
> my 'advertised on IRC' machine, is used for testing purposes only. Once
> things are running I remove all of my connections and build my own darknet
> of people I know and we use it as a private place to meet.
>
> _
> 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 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/20060825/f10a7939/attachment.html>

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[diddle...@hotmail.com]

>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 freenet doesn't 
write information outside that container, no matter what the OS.

_
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

[Evan Daniel]

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
> (truecrypt or the like) partition or container and just hope freenet doesn't
> write information outside that container, no matter what the OS.

I'm confused... is this supposed to be an argument in favor of 0.5???

Evan

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[diddle...@hotmail.com]

>
>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/

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[diddle...@hotmail.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.

_
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

[freenetw...@web.de]

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://downloads.freenetproject.org/alpha/freenet-ext.jar

2) change to the directory they're in

3) rename "freenet-r10260-snapshot.jar" to "freenet.jar"

4) run "java -cp freenet.jar;freenet-ext.jar;%CLASSPATH%;. freenet.node.Node

5) report problems :)



>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 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.  :)
>
>To convince me you need not try for ready am I to migrate to 0.7
>Like others recently posting however I am Windows 98 user not able to 
>change OS.
>Tried have I various install methods to use.  So far Failed have they all.
>
>Seeking guidance am I, to complete the migration with success.  From others 
>have
>I seen postings in their quest similar, yet ignored are they all.
>
>For help thank I you all.
>
>
>___
>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

[diddle...@hotmail.com]

>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: "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?
>>
>
>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 get it, freenet is not a worldwide community (openet), it's a bunch of 
private nets (darknets). Instead of growing to be huge like 0.5, 0.7 is 
inherently made to be small, unless you want to advertise on IRC. For now, 
my 'advertised on IRC' machine, is used for testing purposes only. Once 
things are running I remove all of my connections and build my own darknet 
of people I know and we use it as a private place to meet.

_
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[yoda]

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 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.  :)

To convince me you need not try for ready am I to migrate to 0.7
Like others recently posting however I am Windows 98 user not able to 
change OS.
Tried have I various install methods to use.  So far Failed have they all.

Seeking guidance am I, to complete the migration with success.  From others 
have
I seen postings in their quest similar, yet ignored are they all.

For help thank I you all.

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Lars Juel Nielsen]

On 8/25/06, 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.

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  wrote:
> > On 8/24/06, urza9814 at gmail.com  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, 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

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Lars Juel Nielsen]

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 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 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

[Matthew Toseland]

1. This is nonsense. A darknet doesn't have to be small. A WASTE darknet
has to be small; a Freenet 0.7 darknet can be large, because your
friends connect to their friends who connect to their friends; you can
get a lot of nodes in relatively few hops. There are no "other darknet
programs out there" in the sense of Freenet 0.7's darknet: It is
radically different to WASTE. It is a *globally scalable* darknet, not a
single cell darknet where everyone knows everyone else directly.

2. It is already actively being planned. The EFF, the ACLU and the FFII
are swamped. Freenet is probably illegal today under passed legislation,
and in any case MY passion for Freenet has always been based on using it
in hostile regimes (China blocks freenet 0.5 based on session bytes).
One side effect of the (impossibly broad) IPRED2 directive going through
in the EU might be making Freenet illegal (along making patent
infringement a criminal offence, the world's first 'incitement to IP
violation' law and lots of other terrible things). Hopefully this will
be defeated, but they'll be back with something more specifically
against filesharing (like the French DADVSI law) in a few years.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 06:33:58PM -0400, 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.
> 
> On 8/24/06, Lars Juel Nielsen  wrote:
> >On 8/24/06, urza9814 at gmail.com  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, 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?
> >> &g

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Matthew Toseland]

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 alpha) test changes on the testnet, but right now we develop
stuff in SVN, get people to test it from the testing-latest jar, and
then commit a version bump and deploy the new jar generally.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:06:51PM -0700, an ominous cow herd wrote:
> Thank you for the reply.  I was hoping that you might actually answer the 
> other part of the message 
> 
> The past Freenet had two branches, the stable and unstable. ?The unstable 
> branch was the one where active coding was performed. ?The stable branch did 
> not get updated often if at all.
> 
> 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?
> 
> When I talk of stable and unstable, I'm referring to the the code.  As we can 
> see, the 0.7 network is still undergoing a lot of changes with several 
> critical bug fixes.  The 0.5 network didn't have many changes near the end.  
> The 0.5 network has thousands of user and a lot of content.  What I have 
> heard of the 0.7 network is that it has only a couple hundred users and very 
> little content.
> 
> ps. There are many others like me who would like to try the 0.7 network, but 
> will not if there is no open net.
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 23 August 2006 00:34, 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.
> >
> > Ian.
> >
> >
> > Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
> > phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog
> ___
> 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: 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Lars Juel Nielsen]

On 8/24/06, urza9814 at gmail.com  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, 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
> > >

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[[Anon] Anon User]

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.winstonsmith.info/pws or
https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.

-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext

In <35af28770608241201n680631f1v158485f8cdc4073 at mail.gmail.com> 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 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.
>

I don't know enough programming to do this, but I have an idea for a tool:

Given that a user has an 0.5 node and a new 0.7 node import the data store.

the tool would read the 0.5 store files, convert them to 0.7 format and then 
write them
into the 0.7 store directories.

Other than that, freesites will have to be saved in their entirety and then 
inserted 
into 0.7.  Has FIW been fixed to work with 0.7?  If it has, I'd be willing to 
help insert
0.5 content into 0.7 once I can get 0.7 working on windows98

I would also want to have enough refs to be able to guaranteed connectivity at 
all times.


-END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[yoda]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:37:56 -0400, Juiceman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

snip
 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.  :)

To convince me you need not try for ready am I to migrate to 0.7
Like others recently posting however I am Windows 98 user not able to 
change OS.
Tried have I various install methods to use.  So far Failed have they all.

Seeking guidance am I, to complete the migration with success.  From others 
have
I seen postings in their quest similar, yet ignored are they all.

For help thank I you all.


___
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

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

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://downloads.freenetproject.org/alpha/freenet-ext.jar

2) change to the directory they're in

3) rename freenet-r10260-snapshot.jar to freenet.jar

4) run java -cp freenet.jar;freenet-ext.jar;%CLASSPATH%;. freenet.node.Node

5) report problems :)



On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:37:56 -0400, Juiceman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

snip
 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.  :)

To convince me you need not try for ready am I to migrate to 0.7
Like others recently posting however I am Windows 98 user not able to 
change OS.
Tried have I various install methods to use.  So far Failed have they all.

Seeking guidance am I, to complete the migration with success.  From others 
have
I seen postings in their quest similar, yet ignored are they all.

For help thank I you all.


___
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

[diddler4u]

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:

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 get it, freenet is not a worldwide community (openet), it's a bunch of 
private nets (darknets). Instead of growing to be huge like 0.5, 0.7 is 
inherently made to be small, unless you want to advertise on IRC. For now, 
my 'advertised on IRC' machine, is used for testing purposes only. Once 
things are running I remove all of my connections and build my own darknet 
of people I know and we use it as a private place to meet.


_
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: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Ortwin Regel]

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.On 8/25/06, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Lars Juel Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: support@freenetproject.org
To: support@freenetproject.orgSubject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:54:16 +0200On 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. Alltheyhave to do is go to the IRC Chat and advertise they have freenet and wanttoexchange information with someone. Someone exchanges information with them
and they in. Or are you saying everyone who joined was tricked intojoiningFreenet 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 cautiousto do something as silly as that. Anyway the IRC thing is just forbootstrapping the main network the devs are trying to create. People
who want to have their own private darknets can easily do so too.I get it, freenet is not a worldwide community (openet), it's a bunch ofprivate nets (darknets). Instead of growing to be huge like 
0.5, 0.7 isinherently made to be small, unless you want to advertise on IRC. For now,my 'advertised on IRC' machine, is used for testing purposes only. Oncethings are running I remove all of my connections and build my own darknet
of people I know and we use it as a private place to meet._FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/___Support mailing listSupport@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.supportUnsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
___
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

[diddler4u]

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.


_
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]

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Ortwin Regel]

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 bangyou're all busted._
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
___Support mailing listSupport@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.supportUnsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/supportOr mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
___
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

[diddler4u]

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/


___
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

[Ortwin Regel]

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?_
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!http://search.msn.com/___Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.orghttp://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.supportUnsubscribe at 
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/supportOr mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
___
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

[diddler4u]

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 freenet doesn't 
write information outside that container, no matter what the OS.


_
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]

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Evan Daniel]

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
(truecrypt or the like) partition or container and just hope freenet doesn't
write information outside that container, no matter what the OS.


I'm confused... is this supposed to be an argument in favor of 0.5???

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

[Ortwin Regel]

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: 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 freenet doesn't
 write information outside that container, no matter what the OS.I'm confused... is this supposed to be an argument in favor of 0.5???Evan___Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.orghttp://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.supportUnsubscribe at 
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/supportOr mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
___
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

[diddler4u]

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] 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
(truecrypt or the like) partition or container and just hope freenet 
doesn't

write information outside that container, no matter what the OS.


I'm confused... is this supposed to be an argument in favor of 0.5???

Evan


No it's a discussion about security. Sounds like there are security issues 
in either version. It's just a matter of which security limitations you are 
wanting to accept.


_
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]

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Matthew Toseland]

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 alpha) test changes on the testnet, but right now we develop
stuff in SVN, get people to test it from the testing-latest jar, and
then commit a version bump and deploy the new jar generally.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:06:51PM -0700, an ominous cow herd wrote:
 Thank you for the reply.  I was hoping that you might actually answer the 
 other part of the message 
 
 The past Freenet had two branches, the stable and unstable.  The unstable 
 branch was the one where active coding was performed.  The stable branch did 
 not get updated often if at all.
 
 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?
 
 When I talk of stable and unstable, I'm referring to the the code.  As we can 
 see, the 0.7 network is still undergoing a lot of changes with several 
 critical bug fixes.  The 0.5 network didn't have many changes near the end.  
 The 0.5 network has thousands of user and a lot of content.  What I have 
 heard of the 0.7 network is that it has only a couple hundred users and very 
 little content.
 
 ps. There are many others like me who would like to try the 0.7 network, but 
 will not if there is no open net.
 
 
 On Wednesday 23 August 2006 00:34, 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.
 
  Ian.
 
 
  Ian Clarke: Co-Founder  Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
  phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog
 ___
 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]
 

-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
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

[Matthew Toseland]

1. This is nonsense. A darknet doesn't have to be small. A WASTE darknet
has to be small; a Freenet 0.7 darknet can be large, because your
friends connect to their friends who connect to their friends; you can
get a lot of nodes in relatively few hops. There are no other darknet
programs out there in the sense of Freenet 0.7's darknet: It is
radically different to WASTE. It is a *globally scalable* darknet, not a
single cell darknet where everyone knows everyone else directly.

2. It is already actively being planned. The EFF, the ACLU and the FFII
are swamped. Freenet is probably illegal today under passed legislation,
and in any case MY passion for Freenet has always been based on using it
in hostile regimes (China blocks freenet 0.5 based on session bytes).
One side effect of the (impossibly broad) IPRED2 directive going through
in the EU might be making Freenet illegal (along making patent
infringement a criminal offence, the world's first 'incitement to IP
violation' law and lots of other terrible things). Hopefully this will
be defeated, but they'll be back with something more specifically
against filesharing (like the French DADVSI law) in a few years.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 06:33:58PM -0400, [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.
 
 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

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[an ominous cow herd]

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?  Especially since the 
0.7 network is undergoing many changes with several critical bug fixes.

I also hope you understand that there is a large number of dedicated users on 
the 0.5 network that would like to try the new network, but won't if there is 
no open net.

On Thursday 24 August 2006 17:26, Matthew Toseland wrote:
 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 alpha) test changes on the testnet, but right now we develop
 stuff in SVN, get people to test it from the testing-latest jar, and
 then commit a version bump and deploy the new jar generally.

 On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:06:51PM -0700, an ominous cow herd wrote:
  Thank you for the reply.  I was hoping that you might actually answer the
  other part of the message
 
  The past Freenet had two branches, the stable and unstable.  The unstable
  branch was the one where active coding was performed.  The stable branch
  did not get updated often if at all.
 
  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?
 
  When I talk of stable and unstable, I'm referring to the the code.  As we
  can see, the 0.7 network is still undergoing a lot of changes with
  several critical bug fixes.  The 0.5 network didn't have many changes
  near the end. The 0.5 network has thousands of user and a lot of content.
   What I have heard of the 0.7 network is that it has only a couple
  hundred users and very little content.
 
  ps. There are many others like me who would like to try the 0.7 network,
  but will not if there is no open net.
 
  On Wednesday 23 August 2006 00:34, 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.
  
   Ian.
  
  
   Ian Clarke: Co-Founder  Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
   phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog
 
  ___
  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]

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[diddle...@hotmail.com]

>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/

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[diddle...@hotmail.com]

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=affiliatesi

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Juiceman]

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

[nob...@geonosis.homelinux.net]

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-

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[urza9...@gmail.com]

"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
> &

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[urza9...@gmail.com]

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] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[diddle...@hotmail.com]

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] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[freenetw...@web.de]

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: urza9...@gmail.com
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  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  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 

Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Rowland]

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

[David 'Bombe' Roden]

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: 

[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[Matthew Toseland]

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: 

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

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

[diddler4u]

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

[Rowland]

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]