If we look at the history of the Freenet project, we will see that there were stable and unstable versions. There were times that the unstable version was more stable than the stable version. New users were directed to the stable version while the developers and some adventurous users would use the unstable version. The term stable and unstable referred to the level of patching. The new alpha 0.7 version would qualify as unstable. The 0.5 network would qualify as the stable version.
I have not tried the 0.7 version and will not until there is an open net. The 0.5 version is not too buggy. There are thousands of users on the 0.5 network with many super nodes. The up time of 0.5 nodes can be measured in weeks. The same can not be said for the 0.7 network. I am curious why the push to the 0.7 code while it's still in the alpha stage? Why did Freenet break with the method of version release that they have used in the past? I hope that the Freenet project will reconsider their decision to direct new users to the unstable alpha 0.7 version instead of the stable 0.5 version. On Monday 21 August 2006 00:01, Julien Cornuwel wrote: > an ominous cow herd a ?crit : > >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. > > My point of view is that Freenet has always been a work-in-progress. The > 0.5 version you call "stable" was under developpement just before > becoming unsupported. It has never been stable : google a bit and you'll > find scripts for restarting it every night because of its "unstability". > > Did you try both versions ? If yes, you should have noticed that they > are quite as stable and that 0.7 offers far better performances and > AFAIK the same security level. > > So, why should the developpers of the project push newcomers to an > old/buggy/unsupported/user-hostile network while they are working on > another one that is *already* better ? > > My 2 cents