> > Well duh. > > freeweb is to freenet as WWW is to HTTP! > > Its a naming process. > > > > WWW is to HTTP? Huh?
An abstract naming simplification. Which stops at a point where most average people understand how to use it. I could use HTTP directly but why? > > > > > People who want security will use MSK/SSK. People > > > who don't need it will use Windows and FreeWeb or > > > more likely a web server. If someone really needs > > > encryption they will take the extra time to do it > > > right. > > > > So how does the naming compromise security again? > > > > This is a perfect example of why .free is bad. A > little knowledge is a dangerous thing. FreeWeb relies > on KSKs which are insecure! But Ian just told me that KSK@ is the simplest choice for easy naming on the freenet protocol. He sugested this as an equivaliant to .free naming. If this is insecure then freenet is already insecure. > > > I fail to see the problem with making it easier for > people to secure their > > stuff. > > Command line people will say its the easiest thing > in the world. Just cd > > to /usr/devNULL/42//bin and > > execute 'boringcommand /ssd /a hhhDD44D3 [opp23.a4] > etc.... ' > > > > Oh yeah, > > > > Command line ism is the future to security. right? > > > > Wrong. > > Nobody is suggesting using command line interfaces. > Where did you get that from? Command line ism ss the notion that command line like interfaces trump others for various reasons.(some good some not) At the moment freenet seems to be a command line protocol. Understandable. Its an infant. But people will say this makes it more secure. This is not true. Some one's ignorance of command line intracies of the interface is not a platform for arguing security unless you plan to make some kind of secret society. I assume that Freenet is not a secret society and that the information we are discussing, such as naming will be available for anyone to get. Most Freenet keys are available publicly. So naming these difficult to verbalize keys to something more intuitive is good for the average joe free guy. My point about command line isms is that developers speak this language easily and hence don't infer a cost here. But average intuitive joe free guy will infer a cost. joe free guy does not understand the language and must be spoon fed. I prefer an intuitive ism here for joe free guy. It is joe free guy who will benefit the most. However. Ian has a point that it seems if we want joe free guy to use this system then there should be a serious conventions discussion before proceeding. David McNab has simply wrote something that can tested. Now the debate should begin. A concensous should be formed on a naming standard a this point. Names are important and should not be taken lightly. David is not re-writing freenet. He made his own app on his own time. A freeet app. People don't have to use it. But if people like it they will. Let the usage vote. reagrds, Jay Ferguson _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
