On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:57:29AM -0700, Todd Walton wrote: > On Sun, 18 May 2003, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > > It sounds like you mean 'crazy' to be negative. It would be preferable, > > > surely, to be able to put Freenet on as many machines as possible. > > > > Indeed, and our ability to do that is jeprodised if we start introducing > > platform specific code. We haven't introduced platform specific code in > > over 3 years of development, and I don't want to start now. > > What you're saying is true and not true. It's not true that platform > specific code doesn't exist. It takes platform specific code to get > Freenet to run. It's not *completely* platform independent. It takes a > JVM. It takes start-freenet.sh. It takes the bunny app on Windows. > > It *is* true, however, that one could give freenet.jar to anybody, and > that person could take it and make it run on his or her particular > setup, with no further help from The Freenet Project. Any platform > specific code or files are not strictly essential to Freenet's > operation. The JVM is available elsewhere, they can start and stop the > jar themselves, so on.
Well, maybe. Most platforms don't have a 1.4 JVM. > > [Concerning the "freenet.jar-only" assertion above, it occured to me that > it might be necessary to provide a seednodes file. You couldn't really > get that except from The Freenet Project or someone already using > Freenet.] > > Would your objections, Ian, still stand if whatever was hacked up to do > this fell into the second category of not-strictly-necessary things? > > How do other big servers handle this problem? Or is Freenet the only one > with CPU overloading problems? Sendmail has for decades been sensitive to the system load average. > > -todd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20030519/29f8d1b4/attachment.pgp>
