n/a n/a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > honestly i think its more trouble then its worth, from everything ive read > it is completly un-secure which means everyone and their mother is watching,
No it isn't. The current network does have known attacks sure, but so does every current anonymous/psuedo-anonymous network that uses the Internet, and they always will to some extent - all you can do is make attacks so difficult and expensive they're unfeasible in practice. Which is what the devs are trying to do. Even on the current network it's a lot harder to track Freenet than the "regular" p2p you seem to be comparing it to like Gnutella2 or ed2k. There's a reason why nobody running freenet has ever got a subpoena from the RIAA's hired goons or a DMCA takedown notice, or more to the point why (as far as I know) nobody has been prosecuted for trading highly illegal material over it. > it is painfully slow and un-reliable, Compared to a well-seeded torrent it's usually slow, sure. (See below for why.) But in my experience reliability is better than your average torrent or most other p2p - big files might take days, but once they start you can generally depend on getting it all in the end. In contrast torrent seeds / p2p peers can just disappear and leave you with an incomplete file forever, and quite often do. > not to mention that needlessly huge > file you gotta download when u install it that it never actually lets you > finish downloading, Huh? What file? You mean Java, or what the windows webinstaller downloads? The windows installer / configurer is somewhat dodgy, partly for this reason 0.7 is aiming to simplify it a lot and do as much as possible inside the node. > for what its worth you might as well save yourself the > headache and use any other p2p. Well, you are making the fundamental error of comparing it to mature, non-anonymous p2p apps. Freenet is still a very experimental, beta (or even alpha depending who you ask ;) network which quite often has to come up with the theory as it goes along because nobody has done it before. Its primary goal is anonymity, not performance, and it turns out that the two things are unfortunately diametrically opposed quite often. For example it would be faster if it did more path folding, but that would make it less anonymous. That said, the core developers are well aware that performance is not as good as it could and should be. There are good reasons to hope that the 0.7 rewrite will be better in this regard when it gets to release quality. Even then though you must realise that the ultimate aim of Freenet is *not* blazing-fast popular warez^Wfile downloading like the completely non-anonymous Bittorrent, but rather for secure and anonymous grass-roots distribution of content that may be highly illegal/suppressed in some countries or otherwise against the interests of the authorities. As in people could be *tortured and killed* if they were caught. THAT kind of anonymity. > with the experience ive had with freenet its my opinion that it has been > utterly compremised, there is no anonymity. A JVM crash does NOT mean freenet has been in any way "compromised", it means there are bugs in the JVM, like there are in all complex software. These crashes are not Freenet's fault, it's Suns (or Blackdown's for some people.) In fact the security sandboxing of the JVM is why you get a nice stack trace like those posted above, the virtual machine has crashed but it was self-contained and hasn't affected anything else on your computer. That doesn't mean they don't suck though. I would really like 0.7 release to be GCJ'able or at least run OK under Kaffe :/ Bob _______________________________________________ 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]
