Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to >>>> do with Freenet. >>> >>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet? >> >> That's an assumption, not a fact. As far as I know there's little reason >> to assume that the contact graphs of clandestine political organisations >> are routable small worlds, let alone to assume that the combined contact >> graph of several diverse organisations is a routable small world. > > Well, I think they might be a routable small world, but even if they > are it doesn't follow that this "sneakernet" functionality should be > part of freenet. > > I've heard a few people refer to Freenet as "bloatware", and frankly, > given that 10MB of the install consists of client apps that really > don't need to be bundled with Freenet, I can see why.
I disagree here. Freenet feels like bloatware because it has had[*] problems with high CPU usage, disk trashing and munching memory like crazy. A big download and a couple of satellite apps don't cause a judgment of bloat ware (at least not in the people I known). It is that your computer really loses responsiveness when such a resource hungry java app is running in the background. YMMV. [*] I ceased running freenet in my desktop over half a year a go, so this may be inaccurate now. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
