On Sunday 18 January 2009 23:02, 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote: > And : > > SomeDude at NuBL7aaJ6Cn4fB7GXFb9Zfi8w1FhPyW3oKgU9TweZMw wrote: > > falafel at IxVqeqM0LyYdTmYAf5z49SJZUxr7NtQkOqVYG0hvITw wrote: > >> Freetalk dev p0s claims below: "FMS has serious design faults which can > >> only be fixed by breaking compatibility" > >> > >> Any ideas what these design fault are? > > > > Well, he never says what they are. The only thing I see drastically > > different is CHK vs SSK for messages. If he would elaborate on how this > > will work, then we can determine if it will perform better. > > > > I find the following line said a little later very telling: > > [16:08] <p0s> Tommy[D]: i have stolen most good ideas from the FMS spec. > > i read it very often. > > > >> > >> Toad claims below: "FMS has had both anonymity issues and buffer > >> overflows,..." > > > > Freenet has had, and continues to have anonymity issues. Should we all > > stop using Freenet? > ... > >> [15:52] <p0s> FMS has serious design faults which can only be fixed by > >> breaking compatibility. > > > > Compatibility can be maintained by working together any fixing any > > design faults.
Only by using FMS, which on past performance must be assumed to be unsafe until somebody trustworthy has code reviewed it. However my understanding is that p0s will release specs for his changes in the near future, after he gets the basic functionality changes working. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20090119/f422224c/attachment.pgp>
