On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 11:16:15PM +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: <> > > so that only nodes which have been up for a while (and which are > > therefore likely to stay up) will really get insinuated into the > > network. I suspect that having 99% of Windows users unwittingly set up > > transient nodes is more damaging to the network than users unwittingly > > setting up transient nodes when they could be permenant. > > It is not clear that "permanent" nodes that are only up four hours a day > are more use than harm to the network.
I think we do a poor job of presenting the requirements of freenet involvement to those who stumble upon it. To use freenet, a host must be: (a) Accessible to connections from the Internet. (b) Permanently addressed. (c) Constantly running and online. (d) Not starved for bandwidth or other resources. Most Internet users probably don't meet a single of these characteristics, let alone all of them. Which means that Freenet's potential users are probably only a couple of percent of them, something that we attempt to hide like a dirty secret. OTOH, we would be fools if we didn't expect a 90/10 ratio of leechers to providers. I doubt we'll ever see that change. <> -- Oskar Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
