>On Thursday 24 July 2003 12:36, Michael Schierl wrote:
>> Toad schrieb:
>> > Changes (a ton, mostly not mine):
>> > * Implemented support for ZIP containers
>...
>
>Call me skeptical, but I think this is an amazingly bad idea. It removes any
>concept of having redundant date de-duplicated automatically. Also,
>downloading 1 MB file will potentially take quite a while. Smaller files can
>be downloaded with a greater degree of parallelism. I am simply not convinced
>that partial availability is a problem with a properly routed node, and that
>is all this will achieve. In a way, I think this will make the problem worse,
>because if the entire file cannot be retrieved or re-assembled, then the
>whole site is unavailable, rather than perhaps a few small parts of it.
Supporting containers allows freesite authors to make the decision for themselves, with the 1MB limit preventing drastic duplication on the network. I see the main use for containers being to keep the _required_ parts of a freesite together - namely the html files, layout images, PGP key and Activelink. For me, having all of those available goes a long way to differentiating "good" freesites from "bad" ones. Also, there should be some saving on bandwidth and processing by not having to deal with so many small files.
>Additionally, it means that even if you want to look at one or two pages of a
>100 page site, you still have to download the entire site.
A lot of sites consist of a Table of Contents as the front page, with the content in separate files. I've always found it bad for my karma when I click on a very interesting link and end up with a "Data Not Found" message!
-Kevin
_______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
