>
> What i'm trying to tell you is that it is impossible to ban them without
> banning every single program that i mention above. You'd be limiting
> yourself to 1950s-style "text stream in, text stream out" non-interactive
> batch processing jobs.
>
Is that not how a distributed system would need to behave? For
instance, a SETI processing program would be recieved on a node, Freenet
would request a set of SETI data for the program to input, process, and
then hold the output until someone else requested it. I suppose the
question I'm asking is to what other purpose would the distributed
system be used, other than just to process data coming in and spitting
back out data? In a strict data-processing context, this would allow
processes to be ran securely because they would only be allowed to
manipulate the incoming data, and write the outgoing data, and not have
anything else. In this scenario, the data handling would obviously be
handled by something else, such as the freenet node, without a way for
the data-processing program to have any control.
There are other issues, of course. DOS could be handled by 'nice'ing
the processes, since there would only need to be one for each type
running. There would also have to be some sort of tricky program
election that didn't involve the end users, so that people who had a
machine on freenet and also doing distributed processing could not be
encriminated for allowing their node to run a DMCA incompatible
encryption breaker.
Steven Willoughby
_______________________________________________
freenet-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
