On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:11:25PM -0800, Christopher Brian Jack wrote:
> > > There _has_ to be a question when installing asking the
> > > user if he/she pays for bandwidth (esp outgoing) and set the configuration in
> > > Freenet accordingly - bad press resulting from Joe Doe installing Freenet and
> > > getting $1000 bills (think NZ, OZ) isn't good.
> > Hmm. Good idea. However, I'm not sure that you CAN run a freenet ndoe
> > with any reasonable performance if it's limited to 3GB/mo as is common
> > in oz. Technically, the solution is the average bandwidth limiter.
> > However this is not known to work well (it is pretty much untested since
> > NIO), mostly because no developers have that sort of connection. Perhaps
> > we should put some effort in, but I'm not sure that it's proportionate
> > as users with such connections won't get much out of or contribute much
> > to Freenet. Yes, it might be useful for the occasional content author,
> > so it IS worth thinking about; it's just that they'll be put off by the
> > dire performance implied.
> But I'm not a developer and I do need to keep a leash on the bandwidth my
> node produces.  I've set it to 24576 in/24576 out  so hopefully overall I
> won't be leaching more than 48KiB/sec.  I share a network with a friend
> who pays the bill (has a 50G/month limit) and I'd like to have a present,
> but, limited network bandwidth profile.  He was really leary of letting me
> run a freenet node and he's all but banned kazaa and other related progs
> from being used by his roommates.

Does it stick to the input limit? Also, the output limit is a little
advisory - the node should very rarely use more than 40-50% over the
limit, but it may use over 100% for longish periods. However it should
average out because of rate limiting. Anyway, we know that the bandwidth
limiters, especially the output bandwidth limiters, are vital for
freenet to be widely adopted, that is why we have put so much effort
into them. The point I was making was that many users have far more
restrictive limits than the above - 3GB/mo works out to 1.2kB/sec!
50GB/mo works out to 20kB/sec... I suspect you may have problems with
the above...
> > > Better portals. People _don't_ want links to child pornography (no, I don't want
> > > a discussion, flamefest etc, I'm talking the general public who want to USE
> > > Freenet) to be the first thing they see. Instead the top portal should contain
> > > links like the Diebold one, the Scientology Bible etc. Advertise the fact that
> > > Freedom of Speach is the central issue.
> This doesn't sound like such a bad idea.  I'm sure persons delivering the
> really disgusting content have other channels for disseminator their keys.
> But I think freenet itself handles this problem.  The very fact I'm
> getting DNF's is testment to the fact the freenet is very efficient (maybe
> a little too so) at weeding out stuff not accessed much like child
> pornagraphy with more active datastore things like stuff being censored by
> the DMCA and stuff (becuase that's a very hot topic right now).
> Freenet pretty much handles the child pornography on its own due to the
> way infrequently used data is preempted for newer data; and likely to
> require a lot of work of its maintainer (frequent inserts becuase it will
> degrade in the network rapidly becuase IMHO not a lot of people wish too
> see that material so they never request it - even more so because these
> are images and possibly even likely to be splitfiles - makes the
> maintenance to make the material accessible without the infamous DNF a lot
> of work for the maintainer of such sites).

Interesting perspective. I hope you are right.
> On the other hand the file degradation feature tends to be bad for trendy
> things.  Where the first month a resource is placed into the network (oh
> an example I like, such as an anime fansub) and then it idles and erodes
> away.  It frustrates the heck out of me becuase the freesite that links to
> one video I'd like to see is *still* there but the 700M video DNFs all
> over the place (it's a splitfile) while trying to fetch it.
> > Somebody want to maintain a freesite that links to controversial
> > material but doesn't link to illegal material? A lot of it is a matter
> > of judgement and personal ethics - Thought Crime links to Mein Kampf and
> > an article on bestiality as well as a lot of overtly political stuff.
> > Anyway, YoYo's Controversy section is a good start.
> My thought on the "home" freesite links is that a good starter freesite
> should appeal to the majority of people and have the darker side of the
> freenet not bluntly proclaimed on the first page the freenet user sees.
> Splitting adult content away from general content/freenet/freedom links
> (ie having a single link to a separate freesite index for adult material
> may be a start in the right direction).  This will at least make the first
> contact palatable for *anyone* entering the "home" freesite.

Yes, this is why I like YoYo. However all the major index sites have
"what's new" pages which sometimes have questionable material... and I
don't think there's much that can be done about this, not without
client side scripts anyway.
> Something that might also be good is have some duplication of material
> that isn't controversial, illegal, or typically censored (ie: kid-safe
> freesites, educational sites and the lot).  So that the freenet looks more
> like the internet.  This will encourage more people to use freenodes to
> access content.  Hitting heavy on the "no popups or banner ads" slogan
> needs to be flogged way more than it's mere mention in the documentation
> now.  I think a good one is run a banner on normal internet sites: "run
> your own website!  no size limit, no space limit!  think this is a lie
> [click here]" (links to freenet.sf.net).  

I like this aspect. Most geeks seem to have access to virtually
unlimited hosting at virtually no cost, but I have friends for whom this
is a real problem - one who is active in the online gaming community for
example. She gets a LOT of hits. This is a serious problem - she has to
use a site that charges users a subscription for downloads...

> Another idea might be to
> encourage people to mirror their sites onto freenet if they are on
> gee-oh-sh*tties or yoohoo/homestead with their grossly commercialized
> page extras forced onto their clients' websites and add a link [to view
> this site without ads click here].  Which should link to a customized
> distribution page (oh yeah that's a feature suggestion - being able to
> customize the redist pages made on your own node) explaining that view the
> freesite mirror removes the ads from the page.
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Support mailing list
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

Reply via email to