The installer for 0.7 is way better than the (unmaintained) installer
for 0.5. And we simply don't have the resources to maintain both
branches in any meaningful way.

0.7 is an unstable alpha test, but 0.5 isn't much better. In many ways
0.7's security is better *now*, and it will improve further. Admittedly
in other ways it may be less secure, but I don't believe that 0.5 is
significantly more secure than 0.7, even with the fake-darknet topology
that we use for testing now (with a few real darknet links and lots of
fake ones from #freenet-refs). Many of the more powerful attacks against
0.7, such as correlation attacks, were also viable against 0.5. And
there is content.

As far as initial speed  goes, 0.5 takes a week to get up to something
vaguely resembling speed; 0.7 takes 10+ references to reach the same
stage. Either way there is a big barrier to entry.

On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 05:11:22PM +0200, - 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 took the time to create a simple, down-to-earth website and install
> program without all the technical jargon, you would double or triple your
> user base.
> The only NEW users you're going to get to freenet 0.7 are going to be
> peer-to-peer programming enthusiasts. And how many of those are there that
> don't know about freenet already?
> So instead of scaring all potential freenet users away, It would be wiser to
> just ask members of the freenet community to do the beta testing, and create
> a nice user friendly website for 0,5 until 0,7 is working. Even I would be
> willing to help create this website, and I'm sure many other people also
> would volunteer.
> Best Regards,
> Van

> _______________________________________________
> Support mailing list
> Support at
> Unsubscribe at
> Or mailto:support-request at

Matthew J Toseland - toad at
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey -
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

Reply via email to