On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 11:08:22AM -0400, Colin Davis wrote: > > > >Huh ? How comes you can't update using the auto-updater ? Why do you > >think we are releasing time-delayed self-mandatory builds ? > > The Time-delayed builds aren't enough!
Why? Because a lot of people only run their nodes at the weekend? > I understand you want to encourage people to upgrade, but it's not > worth breaking them off from the network if they don't. That > alienates users, and makes it more likely they'll just drop freenet > entirely. > > I think that a compromise, such as prioritizing any other requests, > resulting in degraded performance, etc, is a much better idea. > If you don't like that, what about a different compromise? Not acceptable. The alternative compromize is update-over-mandatory support as nextgens stated. But it will be a fair amount of work to do it securely. Is it worth it? > > Keep in mind our audience- If someone needs to publish an anonymous > message, and Freenet is no longer willing to talk to his node, he's > now stopped entirely. Yeah... maybe we need update-over-mandatory for alpha 2... The question is, are we losing significant numbers of users now because of this? > > >The problem is that not-up-to-date nodes AREN'T using the auto- > >updater. > >And for nodes wich were off during the delay period, 'too bad' for > >them > >:p ... > > That's the difference- I don't want to screw the users, even if it > helps the network. I understand it's an alpha, but your attitude is > dangerous. If we can accomplish the same objective of not hurting the > network by giving them slow connections, rather than ending their > connections, we're better off. I'm not convinced. I don't think if we have major changes to load balancing (or even data storage) that we want to be supporting old builds; we have to block all requests in either direction. We might allow N2NTMs, or some sort of special "update propagation" messages, but not requests. > > I care about the people who use Freenet, and want to make things > better for them. Agreed! > > >What we need is update-over mandatory support. > >https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=434 > > Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but are you really arguing for > mandatory updating? If you make updating automatically mandatory, I > cannot use freenet any longer. Most people I know feel the same way. > Most slashdotters will agree. No. Update over mandatory = making the node able to update itself from other nodes, *even if they are incompatible with it*. A special class of messages which are used only for updating. There are two complications with this; firstly we have to verify the update (so we have to pass all the keys involved, not just the final result). Secondly we have to verify that the revocation key hasn't been blown (so we have to get a reasonable number of our peers to tell us that it hasn't). > Keep in mind, Freenet is a project for people who like their privacy- > Those people don't take well to automatically running software on > their PC. > > I understand the reason you think auto-updating is the solution, but > I think Mandatory builds are the problem. Without mandatory builds, debugging what is basically an emergent system is going to be immensely more difficult. We are not building a word processor here where there are standard interfaces and file formats and nobody cares how an individual WP works as long as it speaks the language. The routing and load balancing *behaviour* is an integral part of the protocol, and parts of it can be as subtle as the averaging algorithm we use to determine load. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- 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/20060630/3c2cf9f4/attachment.pgp>
