On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 08:18:04PM +1300, David McNab wrote: > The complication imposed by the need to separately download and > install a JVM will deter a large percentage of windows users (who > outnumber linux users at least 12:1), thus robbing Freenet of 90+% of > its potential installed base.
This is why we are working to make Freenet work with GCJ which can compile Java to native code. > Also, refer earlier comments by others on this mailing list about the > problems inherent in all the available free JVMs. We are reporting those bugs, and most will be fixed in the next releases. > One specific nagging problem with Fred is the failure of the bandwidth > throttling. This is echoed by a few Slashdot comments I've seen, where > people object to allocating the lion's share of their bandwidth for a > lot of stuff they're unlikely to use personally. > > Because there's no effective bandwidth throttle, I don't run a freenet > node myself, and haven't done so for several months. And how do you attribute this bug to the fact Freenet is written in Java? > IC> What is wrong with the design? Sure, it isn't perfect, but I am curious > IC> as to what specific suggestions you have (you obviously have some if you > IC> are implying that there are serious flaws in the current design). > > See above. You mentioned bugs, not design flaws that would mandate a rewrite. Ian. -- Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/
msg00695/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
