On Saturday, 31. October 2015 16:27:42 Bob Ham wrote: > 15:47 < pintu> there is no clear strategy on how to get from here to a > robust, published protocol enabling censorship resistant publishing
Your wording carries invalid assumptions and contradicting goals. 1. invalid assumption: a published protocol is required to enable censorship resistant publishing. This is incorrect, because Freenet already enables censorship resistant publishing. A published protocol only makes it easier to write additional programs which use it. Our weakness at attracting users isn’t in the protocol. Documenting the protocol does nothing to improve the baroque user interface, add more applications which use the capabilities of Freenet (a secure drop-box does not need a published protocol, and the same goes for games over Freenet, ...). 2. invalid assumption and contradicting goal: publishing a protocol makes it more robust. a published protocol can make it harder to create a robust protocol, because it creates additional documentation overhead. This can help making a protocol more robust, if there are multiple existing implementations in a similar state of completeness. This isn’t the case with Freenet. Having multiple existing implementations can make it much harder to make a protocol robust, since they all have to be kept synchronized. This makes it almost impossible to do changes which are incompatible with earlier changes. Freenet had quite a few of these in the past years, and some of them already hurt with only a single implementation. 3. incorrect assumption: Freenet is not robust. Compared to many of the systems out there, Freenet is pretty robust. 4. incorrect assumption: There is no clear strategy about the documentation of the protocol. The current clear strategy includes not spending money on documenting the protocol and instead improving the implementation. If you want to document the protocol, we won’t tell you to stop (it would make it easier for people to start hacking the low-level parts of Freenet). So if you care about that, go read the friendly source and document the protocol. If you do that, ensure that you link each part of the documentation to the relevant source files, so people who read your documentation can check whether it is still up to date. And all of this has already been said in the chatlog you included. If you want to make Freenet better, put your Java skills to the task (and in case you don’t know Java, it’s pretty easy to learn the necessary basics to improve Freenet). If you want Freenet to have more users, build applications which use it. The client protocol is sufficiently documented and supported by libraries in several languages, that it’s easy to use Freenet as backend. Best wishes, Arne
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
