On Tuesday 25 November 2008 17:16, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote: > It saves energy and noise and space to run a laptop 24/7 instead of > running a big desktop. > Current laptops are fast and have alot of ram. So don't say laptops are bad > in general. They are bad when they don't run 24/7.
They are designed to not run 24/7. In fact even desktops are designed to not run 24/7, hence the recent rise of mid-range hard disks for low end servers... But sure, a laptop used as a desktop replacement, with a high uptime and a permanent, locally controlled internet connection, is potentially of value as a node. On the other hand a laptop which is not online most of the time, and when it is it's behind some evil firewall, a different one every time ... also desktop PCs are less likely to be double NATed... > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 17:15, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 November 2008 14:40, Florent Daigniere wrote: > >> - Whether we want Mac (mostly laptop users nowadays) > > > > More so than PCs in general? PCs in general are mostly laptops outside of work > > nowadays, aren't they? (Translation: We're doomed! We're all doomed!) > > > >> or not to use the > >> network is an open question. Freenet as currently implemented doesn't > >> play nice with laptops... maybe we should be more clear about that on > >> the website. > > > > With big flashing warning signs? I wonder if there's any way to detect that > > the user is running a laptop pre-install... or post-install for that > > matter... :) Anyway even on a desktop we will still have poor uptime, so I > > guess there's little point in nagging the user about it. > > > > To clarify for anyone who hasn't got the picture yet: > > Low uptime is very bad for Freenet. > > Low uptime darknet is nearly impossible for Freenet. > > Poor connectivity is bad for Freenet. > > Uncontrolled NATs and mobile nodes are bad for Freenet. > > > > To sum it up: > > LAPTOPS ARE BAD FOR FREENET! > > > > 0.10, as currently planned, will help a bit, but even so, uptime is always > > going to be a serious problem... Should we show a flashing warning sign if > > our uptime is below some percentage? > > > >> Florent -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20081125/19fc7738/attachment.pgp>
