On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 10:43 -0600, Ian wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Florent Daigniere < > nextg...@freenetproject.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 10:11 -0600, Ian wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daigniere < > > > nextg...@freenetproject.org> wrote: > > > > Tor and its ecosystem is a better example... > > > > > Tor is a much more mature project than Freenet, > > > > Well, it's not older > > > > You know that's not what "mature" means. > > > > > with vastly more resources, > > > > Sure, but that's also by choice and thanks to a consistent strategy > > (funding wise if nothing else). > > > > In what way is that "by choice"? >
Most of their funding comes from the government and they have ensured that their technology can be used by them (those sponsors). We have created a technology that is meant to "fight" governments... while carefully avoiding any specific usecase that would have attracted their wrath (the copyright infringement brigade, ...) but would have significantly increased the user-base. A wise man once said it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission ;) We can't have a small userbase and rely on donations... and yes I concede that the project surviving for 15y+ has proven me wrong so far. > > > and a much simpler underlying design, because ultimately it's > > > solving > > > a > > > simpler problem. > > > > A simpler problem for which they've found a variety of users (and > > the > > associated sponsors). > > > > Yes, so? > In your initial "project status" email, your focus seems to be "paying the bills". Is that the problem at hand? If so we do need a strategy. > We don't because we chose not to. We could have settled on a simpler > > problem; > > > Sure, there are an infinity of other problems we could have settled > on, but > then that wouldn't be Freenet. > I've always thought that Freenet can't be anything more than a research project. You've conveniently dropped that alternative from my reply. If we agree that Freenet is a reseach project then we can look at how we can fund such a thing. The classical answer is publishing and grants (what GNUnet does) and/or no paid staff. We've never used the funding we had for publishing nor applying for more grants; maybe we should have. If we don't agree on the fact that Freenet is a research project then I'd like to be told what it is (or meant to be). The current security model doesn't fit anyone's use-case. > > Any of the above is superior to what we're doing at the moment > > (chose > > not to have a strategy and an absent leader). > > > > Find someone better to coordinate the project and I'll happily step- > aside > in a heartbeat. > Heh, I'm not trying to push you out, I am just trying to brainstorm to find a positive outcome. Years ago (back when I had free time) I meant to fork the project, I've regretted not doing so ever since. I've never liked the trade-offs financial concerns made us do. To give you an example: opennet/darknet/hybrid. If it had been up to me, Opennet wouldn't have existed and Darknet might be usable by now... but the concern at the time was how to find funds for Matthew. Florent
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
