an empty indent verification message. =(
2008/5/16 :
>
> ___
> cvs mailing list
> cvs at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvs
>
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Cheng
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Matthew Toseland
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ian and I have eventually come to the conclusion that we should include db4o,
Yay.
>> Of course there will be latency here when objects are
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
>> On Friday 16 May 2008 00:52, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>>> >> On
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Matthew Toseland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian and I have eventually come to the conclusion that we should include db4o,
> and use it for our various persistence needs. I eventually reached the
> conclusion that while we can do most of what we need to do with sim
* Daniel Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-16 23:22:15]:
> an empty indent verification message. =(
>
That's because of two things:
1) we used a 1.4 jvm with assertion disabled to compile and it
didn't like your "assert"
2) the gpg key we use to sign messages has expired
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Thursday 15 May 2008 06:11, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Sunday 11 May 2008 11:24, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> >> Author: j16sdiz
>> >> Date: 2008-05-11 10:24:22
f Freenet.
>
Well, if you want freenet to run on embedded systems you will have some
tradeoffs to make at some point... I do think that fproxy and its
dependencies (the content-filter could be pluggable too) are nothing but
overhead.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/7584bb6b/attachment.pgp>
x27;s popularity.
>
> Ian.
-- 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/20080516/d2c17fed/attachment.pgp>
Ian and I have eventually come to the conclusion that we should include db4o,
and use it for our various persistence needs. I eventually reached the
conclusion that while we can do most of what we need to do with simple
flatfile databases, there are big chunks that will require a real database o
ake Freenet more easily embedded, possibly as you suggest.
>
What about fproxy; shall it be separated from fred too ? I think it
should be a plugin to the node.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/1d35c94b/attachment.pgp>
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Colin Davis wrote:
>> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
>> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
>> no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
>> use sourceforge, or googl
from the website..
> > Doing this would lend some of the media coverage and promotion that the
> > project is generating now, onto the applications.
>
> I agree that we should certainly direct user's attention to the
> various client apps, as Java does.
Many of them don't even have webpages.
>
> Ian.
-- 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/20080516/62726bfe/attachment.pgp>
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
>> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
>> no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
>> use so
kness.
>
> The standard AES is not compatible to our Rijndael implementation
> I guess it's not worth breaking the backward compatibility in 0.7.1.
It might be if it's more secure...?
-- 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/20080516/37c3d1d8/attachment.pgp>
first lookup,
reducing the number of seeks... but then maybe there's a downside?
-- 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.or
ver Freenet.
> OR
> 2) Offer them for download on an Official Project Freesite, with the stuff
> that is hosted on our servers being officially endorsed by us for security
> reasons.
> >
> > -Colin
>
-- 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/20080516/262a02f6/attachment.pgp>
High CPU usage (especially if it's at high priority). Mostly nowadays this
is caused by memory issues, although on AMD64 systems FEC may be a problem.
- Constant heavy disk I/O.
All of these are things we should address in 0.7.1.
-- 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/20080516/514ccb60/attachment.pgp>
ally endorsed by us for security
reasons.
>
> -Colin
-- 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/20080516/93b26c90/attachment.pgp>
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
>
>>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
>>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
>>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps.
>>>
>> Heh
ecessarily a strict
hierarchy.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
-- 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/20080516/d6670acd/attachment.pgp>
> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
> no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
> use sourceforge, or google code, or set up their own website.
>
>
For the same
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
> wrote:
That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
do with Freenet.
>>>
>>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet?
>>
>> That's an assumption, not a fact. As far as
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daigni?re
wrote:
>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps.
>
> Heh, java has a frozen API... last time I c
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> Strongly agreed. From the point of view of a new user, or a journalist, FMS is
> part of Freenet. It is highly unlikely to get any independant publicity, even
> if we don't bundle it. All that happens if we don't bundle it is it doesn't
>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis wrote:
> I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
> would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
> by application development.. Currently, when Freenet makes a new
> revision, that hits Slashdot, R
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
>>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
>>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps
> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
> no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
> use sourceforge, or google code, or set up their own website.
>
>
For the same
On Friday 16 May 2008 15:35, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What about fproxy; shall it be separated from fred too ? I think it
> > should be a plugin to the node.
>
> Fproxy is the means through which the node is configu
an empty indent verification message. =(
2008/5/16 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> ___
> cvs mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvs
>
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Friday 16 May 2008 00:52, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland
>> >> wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 13 May 2008 17:10, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> >> Author: j16sdiz
>> >> Date: 2008-05-13 16:10:
* Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-16 09:35:34]:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
> >> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
> >> follow that
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps.
>
> Heh, java has a frozen A
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Matthew Toseland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strongly agreed. From the point of view of a new user, or a journalist, FMS is
> part of Freenet. It is highly unlikely to get any independant publicity, even
> if we don't bundle it. All that happens if we don't bundle
* Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-16 09:21:10]:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
> > would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
> > by application
On Friday 16 May 2008 15:21, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
> > would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
> > by application developme
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
> would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
> by application development.. Currently, when Freenet makes a new
> revision, th
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Evan Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Toseland
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Friday 16 May 2008 00:52, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > On
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Toseland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 16 May 2008 00:52, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10
On Friday 16 May 2008 00:52, Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday 13 May 2
On Friday 16 May 2008 12:50, Daniel Cheng wrote:
> >
> >> Have to pick a random one to overwrite
> >
> > Is it better to overwrite a random one or the first one?
>
> no idea which one is better
Well, overwriting the first one would mean it's found on the first lookup,
reducing the number of seek
Okay, I'm modifying my compromise solution slightly here:
The installer itself should be lean and mean, and not bundle anything apart
from the smaller plugins.
At the end of the post-install wizard, we show the user a brief explanation of
each application, and ask them whether they want it. Tho
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Matthew Toseland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 15 May 2008 06:11, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Matthew Toseland
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sunday 11 May 2008 11:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> Author: j16sdiz
>> >>
On Friday 16 May 2008 09:53, Jano wrote:
> Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
> do with Freenet.
> >>>
> >>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a rou
On Thursday 15 May 2008 23:09, Colin Davis wrote:
> Ian Clarke wrote:
> > I do agree that bundling can make user's lives easier, but it should
> > be >>client apps bundling Freenet<<, not the other way around.
> >
> > Ian.
> >
> >
>
> I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agr
On Thursday 15 May 2008 21:28, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> Bluetooth?
> >
> > Even less bandwidth than wifi, no? We need several gigabits (over a range
> > measured in feet) for it to be viable.
>
> Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
do with Freenet.
>>>
>>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet?
>>
>> That's an assumption, no
No, it's not.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> Very nice, is this complete?
>
> On Sunday 11 May 2008 08:27, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> Author: j16sdiz
>> Date: 2008-05-11 07:27:21 + (Sun, 11 May 2008)
>> New Revision: 19887
>>
>> Added:
>>trunk/fre
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 May 2008 17:10, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> Author: j16sdiz
>> Date: 2008-05-13 16:10:32 + (Tue, 13 May 2008)
>> New Revision: 19912
>>
>> Modified:
>>trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers/Rijndael.java
49 matches
Mail list logo
