According to the open source -principle, there definitely should be a solution for this. The current dictatorship of "knowing better" than the users what is good for them and what is not is more like Apple than an open source -project.
If users want to have an opennet with loads of peers, why not allow them to have it? Maybe the users are right - and if not, they will come back to the 30 connections. Of course, there could be a branching of freenets (only nets or also codes) where one would be code-customized by users and the other would be a technology development project by enthusiastic developers. A bit like Debian and its derivatives. However, this is hardly good for the cause or justified with a much smaller project where different lines can be easily combined within a single project with some flexibility towards the wants of users. It would be better to have, even at the loss of completely homogenous network, a version of freenet 0.7 that would resemble freenet 0.5 enough to close the old net down. That is, only opennet, and a freely configurable amount of connections. Very probably the increasing amount of nodes in the 0.7 network would outweigh the loss of rigidity in the network due to nodes with loads of connections. The developers are right in one thing though - it would probably not be good to have a gui -configurable option for more connections, because then also the basic Windows -(l)users would just tune it up because "bigger is better". However, having a line in the config file for this that is not that obvious would get rid of the problem. Label it "conntrack" an define the value in binary if you like - but just give those willing to test the ability to do so and involve more users in the development. -- Malkus Lindroos Nomen Nescio wrote: > (please excuse me if this is a duplicate) > > Toad, > > Recently a message by you was xposted to 0.5 about a crypto weakness you > folks discovered in 0.7 that 0.5 is also subject to. > > After some discussion, one individual came up with a patch and procedure for > fixing this on 0.5. While a lot will simply use that patch and build new > freenet.jar executables, there are some who aren't up to it for whatever > reason. > > Given the patch and the msg announcing it, would you be willing to create an > 'official' freenet 0.5 build 5108 and make it available at the same place > where the old 0.5 stuff is at http://downloads.freenetproject.org/ ? > > BTW- I know you and other freenet devs haven't been in the habit of doing so > but would you also be willing to include a digital signature of some kind? > At least an SHA-1 hash, preferably a detached pgp signature. > > Thanks > > Here's the message I mentioned, followed by the patch: > > > ...
