This argument makes sense to me, but only so long as there isn't a lot of spec churn in FNP protocol. Nobody wants to write an implementation to a moving target.
I think the biggest problem with the Freenet project is they keep changing the protocol in ways that aren't backward compatible. On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 00:41, Todd Walton wrote: > On 4/25/05, vinyl1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there any security check to insure that only genuine nodes containing > > 100% pure Freenet > > code are able to connect to the network? > > No, there's not. We wouldn't want one either. Why do all nodes have > to be "100% pure Freenet code" (which I assume you mean to be "code > from the Freenet Project")? As long as it speaks the Freenet Network > Protocol (FNP) it should be encouraged that others write their own > nodes. Fred, which is the name of the node code from the Freenet > Project, stands for Freenet Reference Daemon. It's the value of a > network that communication is reduced to the minimum necessary for the > desired application, and that innovation is allowed to occur at the > "edges". > > -todd > _______________________________________________ > Support mailing list > [email protected] > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- My skills and contact info: http://www.blcss.com/rowland/contactme.php Public Freenet gateway: http://www.blcss.com/fr.pl _______________________________________________ Support mailing list [email protected] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
