* Magnus Eriksson <magetoo at fastmail.fm> [2006-07-12 06:47:20]: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Ken Snider wrote: > > >Colin Davis wrote: > > >But what if one of the reasons for the Mandatory build is that the prior > >client was doing something unhealthy to the network? Or that some > >fundamental routing change was made that causes them to be unable to > >"speak" the same protocol any longer? > > > >That's why I had suggested some form of updates-only protocol that could > >be long-lived. > > Or in other words, "some form of new attack vector that could be hard to > fix". >
No, some protocol changes, that's all. > > I'm puzzled by the attitude towards this. We have a network designed to > safely disseminate data. Periodically, the node needs to safely fetch > data. I'm sorry, is the solution too obvious? > > Face it. Either the network is good enough (and robust enough) to allow > people to get their updates through the network itself, or it isn't. And > if the developers don't trust the network enough to even distribute > updates to the software, why should I as a user even bother? > We are already doing it... The problem with mandatory releases is that as soon a node has fetched the full update, it WILL update and won't talk to older builds... thereby the content won't spread. > > The fact that this is even an issue (and that the mandatory builds are > so common) should be a cause for any potential user to think twice if > this, that is, Freenet, really is the way to go. > > Freenet is still in alpha stage ... Should we slow down the development process on the behalf that some users aren't willing to update ? > > Some sort of disclosure: I do not currently use Freenet. I do like > Freenet though, I think it's the best thing currently available (more or > less..) for anonymous communication and publication. And I would very > much like to use it in the future, if I can. I'm not here to flame. > > Then install it and you'll see that the update-over-freenet mechanism performs well. Updating over mandatory builds isn't implemented yet, that's all. NextGen$ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060712/dbffca31/attachment.pgp>
