On Tuesday 04 June 2002 19:33, Revenant wrote: > Greg Wooledge wrote: >><SNIP> >> I tend to describe freenet as a peer-to-peer alternative to the >> world wide web. (I stay the hell away from the term "file sharing" >> because it's such a loaded term, and barely touches on what freenet >> is anyway). > One of the worst things you can do is compare Freenet to the web or > file sharing protocols. > Freenet is basicly a routing protocol that sits over TCP/IP (though > other transport/network layers are possible). While IP routes to a > specific machine, Freenet routes to a specific peice of data.
Hmm. While this is true, is the average man on the street going to have any idea what that actually _means_? My description was intended to be useful to the average user. Granted, they possibly won't know what "peer-to-peer" means, but they don't really need to know what it means to get the gist. Why do you think comparing Freenet to the web is "one of the worst things you can do"? It _is_ essentially a WWW analogue isn't it? (It also has e-mail analogues, but AFAIK they're kludges where each message is effectively an encrypted piece of webdata only readable by its intended recipient). --------------- Revenant [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ------------------ "When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to it's subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives." - Robert A. Heinlein _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
