Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
But why wouldn't a node just stop allowing connections when it sensed it was being used to much? Limit bandwidth and CPU usage within a given time frame and maybe watch for DoS type issues by only letting a certain number of connections per host per timeframe through? Then you know enough for a node to keep itself from being overloaded. There already is bandwidth limiting. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
There already is bandwidth limiting. *nods* I thought there was but haven't gone back to look at any such details. Does it allow limiting incoming and outgoing bandwidth each on their own? ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Centralization. While it's not so bad if a better machine does a little more work, it get's bad when that same machine is getting requests from half the network. Wouldn't that be more a problem of routing requests than saying it is horrible if you want your node to have more data? I can see why centralization is bad but to be realistic there are just certain places that put out or take in a lot more information than others. Freedom shouldn't mean forced equality I guess. Couldn't the protocol just notice if there was centralization going on and assuming you had enough nodes in the network as a whole rebalance things somewhat? If I understand what you're saying, no it can't. Freenet is designed so that you can't know what is going on in other parts of the network. A single node might notice that a certian other node tends to pop up a lot in it's table, and then go out and find a new node with similar data, but I don't think you could do this network- wide and still maintain anonyimity. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Timm Murray: Over time, the large node simply accumulates more data from Freenet. This means there should be more nodes which point to data on the large node. Thus, there will be more requests routed to the large node. Uhh... so? The node's big; it can handle lots of requests. That's not a problem. What's a problem is if Freenet says: Hey, your node is 10% better than usual, so let's send every request to it! I don't see why this would happen. What about the guy who has a 40 GB hard drive, devotes half of it to Freenet, but only has a 56Kinda modem? I'm pretty sure this *will* happen, probably already has. If the average node is around 200 MB (which is what was suggested by Oskar and Scott at some point, IIRC), and you have a 20 GB node, your node is (1024*20)/200 = 102.4 times better then average, quite a bit more then the 10% you cite. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Now you've got it :) Yes, you're right that artificaly limiting the size of the store is a bad idea (zero-one- infinity rule), but that doesn't stop us from advocating that people keep their store size down. Setting the datasource diffrently when overloaded is an intresting idea. I'll have to twist my brain around it more. Mark J Roberts: Timm Murray: Over time, the large node simply accumulates more data from Freenet. This means there should be more nodes which point to data on the large node. Thus, there will be more requests routed to the large node. Uhh... so? The node's big; it can handle lots of requests. That's not a problem. What's a problem is if Freenet says: Hey, your node is 10% better than usual, so let's send every request to it! I don't see why this would happen. Looks like I totally, embarassingly missed your point the first time around... I'll try this again. :} You're right: it's true that the bigger your store, the more requests your node will receive. And overloaded nodes are bad because they make the network unreliable. So our objective is obviously to prevent overload. Well, I really detest artificially constricting the store size in order to regulate request load. But I _do_ understand your point now: larger stores demand more bandwidth. Low-bandwidth nodes need some way to avoid overload, and constricting the size of the store is one way to do it. The _wrong_ way to do it What's creepy about this are the various heuristics proposed to accomplish it: don't make a large store!, if you have Y bandwidth, use a X megabyte store!, etc. It's impossible to find an acceptable one. Which means that nodes will have to detect overload and adjust themselves. Which also means that we can stop promoting this dangerous small-store idea - the recommended size of the store should be based on the memory required to index its contents. One solution might be to, when overloaded, set the datasource not to yourself but to where you would've routed the request if you didn't have the data. You'd really actually use a probability scaled by the current throughput. Needs more processing. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
I haven't seen _any_ compelling argument why above-average nodes should attract more than their fair share of requests. What's yours? Over time, the large node simply accumulates more data from Freenet. This means there should be more nodes which point to data on the large node. Thus, there will be more requests routed to the large node. Does FreeNet not take into account reliability, Not for routing an individual request, no. However, nodes that don't respond when requested will be flushed from the datastore. proximity, No. speed, No. etc of nodes when fetching files? If it does I would think it could automaticlly sense if a node was becoming saturated and find a more satisfactory link and/or clone the resource? Why is it a bad thing if machines with more resources do more work? Centralization. While it's not so bad if a better machine does a little more work, it get's bad when that same machine is getting requests from half the network. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Not useless. Dangerous. And how would it be dangerous if it were a feature you had to use by choice? I'm not saying change the default behavior. I'm saying add an option when you've rounded out the more vital parts of the program. Not that it matters I suppose. If you don't add it then someone else can always add it for themselves. Rather than waste 100's of gigs of space caching data I've already written to disk and wish to keep available to other apps on my disk (not to mention a second copy of all data mirrored to another drive for backup) it's a perfectly reasonable thing to have as an option. Unless you're planning to write a FreeNet filesystem so that other apps can work with said files without having to be made FreeNet aware. Even then there are benefits to keeping the original on my disk in the form I originally placed them in. I am going to have a copy of the data stored on the disk anyway for other apps to work with.. so using links is no more dangerous than having copies but is lots nicer on my diskspace. Anything I downloaded from FreeNet I'd still want stored in the normal FreeNet cache. Anything I decided to insert as a copy rather than a link would still be in the cache. Anything I decided to insert as a link would still be stored in the cache of whatever nodes I was connected to. The link only has value on the local machine. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Implementing scores of kinda-somewhat-maybe-useful features is a great way to destroy any application. One feature that should be extremely simple to implement and has a long history of use is going to destroy FreeNet? It shouldn't even effect the protocol at all. Surely you're being over dramatic. I'm not asking you to add a talking paper clip. Certainly having no features leaves you with no application at all. And the transparent store thing is _clearly_ useless. Maybe if you never want to have more than a couple gigs of files on your network. If you want massive numbers of files available then it's a very useful feature. Not everyone is willing to clone every single file they have just for FreeNet. Certainly not people with any large number of files they'd like to insert. I'm certain I'd be rather annoyed if my webserver wanted me to cache all my files in a certain manner that makes them inaccessible to other programs. Or how about my file server? Damn all this time I've been making my files available on my network via web, scp, ftp, NFS, Samba, and Appletalk. Now I'll have to make 6 different copies of every file. It just wouldn't make sense and it doesn't make sense for FreeNet either. I understand the need for secure caches but it's an entirely different issue in this case. I have no need to hide the fact that I'm making these files available. It'd be fully evident to anyone interested because there'd be fully visible copies still on the machine. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Timm Murray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Sorry Mark, but the one computer, one node rule is something I picked up from Oskar (I think), and I decided I agreed with him (and not just because he's Oskar). Freenet works better with lots of smaller nodes to spread the data out then to have a few really big nodes. I think the optimal solution is to have each computer on the LAN to have a 50-200 MB store (non-transient) with the main node having a 1-2 GB store. (Damn, dude! Hit Enter once in a while!) No It seems quite likely that in the near future, Freenet is going to be (more commonly) used as a transport mechanism for Very Large Files (~650 MB). If the local node's data store is less than the size of the file you're trying to retrieve, I doubt that the results are going to be pleasant. This is not a problem with split files. Event before split files, the node would just save it to the hard drive, pass it on to the next node, then delete it. You may have problems if the file is larger then your total free hard drive space. Again, this is not a problem with 0.4/5 split files. I can't see any reason why you'd want a data store less than 1 GB, unless your hard drive is simply so small that you can't have a node that big. (In which case you won't be downloading ISO images, so you won't face these issues in the first place.) Large datastores tend to centralize the network. Datastores don't fill up as quickly and your node caches more data and less data falls out. On the surface, this seems like an advantage; indeed, for a node operator's short term gain, it is an advantage. However, over the long term it tends to hurt routing. Nodes won't be requesting as much data from other nodes, and thus won't discover new nodes through requests. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Timm Murray: Large datastores tend to centralize the network. Datastores don't fill up as quickly and your node caches more data and less data falls out. On the surface, this seems like an advantage; indeed, for a node operator's short term gain, it is an advantage. However, over the long term it tends to hurt routing. Nodes won't be requesting as much data from other nodes, and thus won't discover new nodes through requests. I haven't seen _any_ compelling argument why above-average nodes should attract more than their fair share of requests. What's yours? I've heard the whispered rumors about simulations suggesting that Freenet will deny some nodes traffic while overloading others, and I think the problem, if there actually is one, can easily be fixed by varying the datasource-reset frequency inversely with request load. Anyway, I'm not too impressed with arguments that nodes won't see enough requests. Freenet routing is grossly inefficient. Nodes are going to be _falling_over_ with requests when it's actually used. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Timm Murray: Over time, the large node simply accumulates more data from Freenet. This means there should be more nodes which point to data on the large node. Thus, there will be more requests routed to the large node. Uhh... so? The node's big; it can handle lots of requests. That's not a problem. What's a problem is if Freenet says: Hey, your node is 10% better than usual, so let's send every request to it! I don't see why this would happen. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Mark J Roberts: Timm Murray: Over time, the large node simply accumulates more data from Freenet. This means there should be more nodes which point to data on the large node. Thus, there will be more requests routed to the large node. Uhh... so? The node's big; it can handle lots of requests. That's not a problem. What's a problem is if Freenet says: Hey, your node is 10% better than usual, so let's send every request to it! I don't see why this would happen. Looks like I totally, embarassingly missed your point the first time around... I'll try this again. :} You're right: it's true that the bigger your store, the more requests your node will receive. And overloaded nodes are bad because they make the network unreliable. So our objective is obviously to prevent overload. Well, I really detest artificially constricting the store size in order to regulate request load. But I _do_ understand your point now: larger stores demand more bandwidth. Low-bandwidth nodes need some way to avoid overload, and constricting the size of the store is one way to do it. The _wrong_ way to do it What's creepy about this are the various heuristics proposed to accomplish it: don't make a large store!, if you have Y bandwidth, use a X megabyte store!, etc. It's impossible to find an acceptable one. Which means that nodes will have to detect overload and adjust themselves. Which also means that we can stop promoting this dangerous small-store idea - the recommended size of the store should be based on the memory required to index its contents. One solution might be to, when overloaded, set the datasource not to yourself but to where you would've routed the request if you didn't have the data. You'd really actually use a probability scaled by the current throughput. Needs more processing. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
This feature is completely incompatible with Freenet's goals and architecture (insofar as I understand the latter). Freenet isn't Gnutella. Thank gawd. Gnutella really does suck. Mostly because of users who take without giving. In fact, the closest approximation to Freenet that I'm aware of is Usenet. When you insert an article into Usenet, you don't expect your news client to store the article in your home directory, then tell the news server what the file name is. The news server might not even be on the same computer as the client! (And might not share a filespace, e.g. with NFS or SMB.) I fully understand this. I don't see how that changes anything. Freenet is a client/server architecture, like (modern, post-NNTP) Usenet. Your client has some data; it might have come from a file, or you might have piped it in on stdin, or it might have spontaneously generated itself for all we know. The client opens an FCP connection to a Freenet node -- which may be on the same machine or not. It does some protocol handshaking, then sends the data to the node. Obviously the symlink would only work on local machines unless for some reason you wanted to make it able to addle URL's also but I don't see how that would help anybody. The protocol is fine. It's just a simple issue of file storage exactly as storing any other file would be. The rest of the Freenet network shouldn't be able to tell any difference. If you think your feature is going to be easy to implement (which I personally doubt), then go ahead and submit your patch for peer review after you've added it. I haven't looked much at the FreeNet code but if it uses decent abstractions for the caching portions it shouldn't be very difficult. I have a half dozen projects I'm working on now so I really haven't time to start hacking something new yet. When I come to the point of needing it I'll add it. I'd rather wait for a 1.0 version from the guys upstairs first anyway since it sounds like nobody else would want to keep the feature in and I'd hafta rehack it for each new version. If I fall flat on my ass in my efforts well I guess I'll owe everyone a beer or something. ; ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Every computer should be running a Freenet node anyway. There are ways to make Freenet work behind firewalls, though it's a bit tricky last I heard. Something like a Squid proxy server for Freenet is actualy redundant. That's ridiculous. Run _one_ node per LAN. Sorry Mark, but the one computer, one node rule is something I picked up from Oskar (I think), and I decided I agreed with him (and not just because he's Oskar). Freenet works better with lots of smaller nodes to spread the data out then to have a few really big nodes. I think the optimal solution is to have each computer on the LAN to have a 50-200 MB store (non-transient) with the main node having a 1-2 GB store. Node announcements always go through the main node. You can skip a few computers if you have security concerns (such as on a web server). Then set your LANs firewall to block everything incoming and outgoing (except what is explicity allowed; you should do this anyway). Allow the main node to go out on the various Freenet ports. This should make it so that internal nodes don't learn about nodes outside the LAN (except for the main node). They will learn about new nodes when requests are sent through the main node, but those new nodes will be flushed when they can't contact that node because of the firewall. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Greg Wooledge: Timm Murray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Sorry Mark, but the one computer, one node rule is something I picked up from Oskar (I think), and I decided I agreed with him (and not just because he's Oskar). Does Freenet routing _really_ seem all that attractive to you for the average LAN? WHY?? Freenet works better with lots of smaller nodes to spread the data out then to have a few really big nodes. If, by works better, you mean resists attack through decentralization, or prevents overload by mirroring data. But, uhh..., who's attacking individual nodes on a fucking LAN? Is your LAN _really_ big enough to suffer from slashdot effects... and if so, how does adding MULTIPLE HOPS to each request help your suffering network? It seems quite likely that in the near future, Freenet is going to be (more commonly) used as a transport mechanism for Very Large Files (~650 MB). If the local node's data store is less than the size of the file you're trying to retrieve, I doubt that the results are going to be pleasant. I don't believe in caching locally inserted or requested data. Say you have a 1G store, and you download a 650M movie. It's cached. Congratulations, you just _wiped_out_ half the useful data in your store! Hope you don't download another one Yes, I realize that this invites evil nodes to attempt to verify that we've actually cached the data by checking how quickly their request to us for it is fulfilled. However, caching many parts of the same splitfile is almost as bad, and splitfiles aren't going away. So I think the argument against caching wins, for now. It's an unpleasant decision. And storing partial data for later completion is the client's job. I can't see any reason why you'd want a data store less than 1 GB, unless your hard drive is simply so small that you can't have a node that big. (In which case you won't be downloading ISO images, so you won't face these issues in the first place.) Indeed. Each node should use all the disk space and bandwidth it can. And those heretics who'd like to force-homogenize Freenet should be force-homogenized in a large industrial blender. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
[freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
I look forward to the day when I visit slashdot and see a story on Freenet, with the 'hops' logo at the top right of the story - ie freenet having its own category on /. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Yes, in fact if you hang around long enough, you will find a lot of people suggesting using Freenet to overcome the Slashdot Effect. Freenet is still slower then HTTP in the sense that it will use more bandwidth. An HTTP server under normal bandwidth load will allways be faster then Freenet, but Freenet is infinatly faster then not being able to get the document at all. Would it be possible to add FreeNet into something like Squid so that any web browser inside a LAN that is already set to use our Squid proxy server would be able to request FreeNet objects without needing to run nodes on every machine or to configure each machine to use a special FreeNet proxy? It'd seem to me that'd be a major issue on making it available inside firewalls and such. Assuming that is even a desired goal for FreeNet. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re:Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Yes, in fact if you hang around long enough, you will find a lot of people suggesting using Freenet to overcome the Slashdot Effect. Freenet is still slower then HTTP in the sense that it will use more bandwidth. An HTTP server under normal bandwidth load will allways be faster then Freenet, but Freenet is infinatly faster then not being able to get the document at all. Would it be possible to add FreeNet into something like Squid so that any web browser inside a LAN that is already set to use our Squid proxy server would be able to request FreeNet objects without needing to run nodes on every machine or to configure each machine to use a special FreeNet proxy? It'd seem to me that'd be a major issue on making it available inside firewalls and such. Assuming that is even a desired goal for FreeNet. Every computer should be running a Freenet node anyway. There are ways to make Freenet work behind firewalls, though it's a bit tricky last I heard. Something like a Squid proxy server for Freenet is actualy redundant. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
From: Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:25 AM Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops Would it be possible to add FreeNet into something like Squid so that any web browser inside a LAN that is already set to use our Squid proxy server would be able to request FreeNet objects without needing to run nodes on every machine or to configure each machine to use a special FreeNet proxy? Very much, YES! :) Have a look at fcpproxy. It's in freenet CVS - more precisely, Contrib/fcptools/fcpproxy (NOT Freenet/Contrib/...). fcpproxy in its present form is a hack of the Junkbusters proxy server. It's got a hook that recognises when an http request should go to Freenet, and instead requests the key using the ezFCPlib C functions. No doubt Squid can be easily hacked in a similar way. David ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re:Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Every computer should be running a Freenet node anyway. There are ways to make Freenet work behind firewalls, though it's a bit tricky last I heard. Something like a Squid proxy server for Freenet is actualy redundant. I mean that from a security standpoint I would not want every machine on my LAN running FreeNet. Not that I don't trust the programmers of FreeNet but each new bit of ware you have to run on each machine is just one more thing to worry about. The entire LAN is essentially running as a single computer on the Net so it doesn't make sense to run more than one node and it makes the most sense to run that node as part of the proxy server that is already setup. There is already some proxy server FProxy or something like that which lets you use a local machine to host FreeNet objects within the web browser. Couldn't you just wrap that into an already existing proxy server (once it reaches a stable API) to simplify installation and admining? ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Timm Murray: Yes, in fact if you hang around long enough, you will find a lot of people suggesting using Freenet to overcome the Slashdot Effect. Freenet is still slower then HTTP in the sense that it will use more bandwidth. An HTTP server under normal bandwidth load will allways be faster then Freenet, but Freenet is infinatly faster then not being able to get the document at all. Splitfiles make Freenet faster than any webserver - the bandwidth attainable should be limited by the size of the network and average node throughput. Would it be possible to add FreeNet into something like Squid so that any web browser inside a LAN that is already set to use our Squid proxy server would be able to request FreeNet objects without needing to run nodes on every machine or to configure each machine to use a special FreeNet proxy? It'd seem to me that'd be a major issue on making it available inside firewalls and such. Assuming that is even a desired goal for FreeNet. Yes. Every computer should be running a Freenet node anyway. There are ways to make Freenet work behind firewalls, though it's a bit tricky last I heard. Something like a Squid proxy server for Freenet is actualy redundant. That's ridiculous. Run _one_ node per LAN. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Very much, YES! :) Have a look at fcpproxy. It's in freenet CVS - more precisely, Contrib/fcptools/fcpproxy (NOT Freenet/Contrib/...). fcpproxy in its present form is a hack of the Junkbusters proxy server. It's got a hook that recognises when an http request should go to Freenet, and instead requests the key using the ezFCPlib C functions. No doubt Squid can be easily hacked in a similar way. Thanks. Exactly the information I was looking for. Any idea if any of the Squid developers have been involved in FreeNet at all? I always thought the Junkbusters proxy was based on Squid but have never used it so I guess I was wrong. :) Am I correct in thinking that the Squid server would then run a node as usual and using that C library would just push the file back to the user as it would have with any other web request? Hrm.. Squid has the ability to have certain portions of itself scripted out to do interesting things. Possibly this could be implemented even as a shell script? Will hafta look.. :) ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
begin Mark J Roberts quotation of Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 05:29:11PM -0500: That's ridiculous. Run _one_ node per LAN. Only 2GB of Freenet storage for a LAN that may have terabytes of unused hard drive space on desktop systems? Why? You could certainly make a security case for having one gateway node that talks to the outside, but you might as well use that free space on all those computers to make the Freenet experience better and faster for all the users on the LAN. -- Don Marti What do we want? Free Dmitry! When do we want it? Now! http://zgp.org/~dmarti Free Dmitry: http://eff.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free the web, burn all GIFs: http://burnallgifs.org/ ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
From: Don Marti [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's ridiculous. Run _one_ node per LAN. Only 2GB of Freenet storage for a LAN that may have terabytes of unused hard drive space on desktop systems? Why? Tavin is presently re-writing the datastore code, which will allow the creation of massive datastores which will physically exist as a set of 2GB files. AFAIK, Tavin will be releasing the updated code within about a week. David ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
Michael: Would/is it be possible to serve files in place? Rather than packing them into cache files? Something more Napster/Gnutella like just because it seems painful to have to have two copies of the same files on my hdd. Why do you think Freenet would ever ask your node for that data? ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
From: Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] Would/is it be possible to serve files in place? Rather than packing them into cache files? Something more Napster/Gnutella like just because it seems painful to have to have two copies of the same files on my hdd. There are heavy legal problems with that: 1) It becomes possible to censor freenet, which makes it answerable to the DMCA 2) If your PC gets hacked or confiscated, the datastore may contain unencrypted files which are illegal in your country. You could go to jail, or even be executed for possession of certain files in certain countries Freenet encrypts the datastore and consolidates it into one or more large files for very good reasons: 1) No one can determine exactly what's on your disk, not even you. Not unless you request a given key at htl 0 while your node is disconnected. 2) There is no way you can eliminate any file from the datastore without destroying the whole store. That keeps freenet uncensorable, and eliminates the ability to monitor content (such ability is necessary for a node operator to be answerable to the DMCA). 3) You cannot be held responsible for the contents of your datastore, because it can't be proved that you requested or inserted such materials. Legally, you should be able to fall into the category of a 'caching online service provider'. Here, freenet provides a level of 'plausible deniability'. David ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
David McNab: Freenet encrypts the datastore and consolidates it into one or more large files for very good reasons: I don't see many good reasons at all. (Does anyone else?) 1) No one can determine exactly what's on your disk, not even you. Not unless you request a given key at htl 0 while your node is disconnected. Which is trivial. 2) There is no way you can eliminate any file from the datastore without destroying the whole store. That keeps freenet uncensorable, and eliminates the ability to monitor content (such ability is necessary for a node operator to be answerable to the DMCA). Wrong. Deleting a file from the store is easy. 3) You cannot be held responsible for the contents of your datastore, because it can't be proved that you requested or inserted such materials. Legally, you should be able to fall into the category of a 'caching online service provider'. Here, freenet provides a level of 'plausible deniability'. But this is also true for the transparent store that he suggested. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Slashdot needs Freenet category with Hops
begin Michael quotation of Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 08:39:47PM -0500: Usually I've always tried to concentrate disk space at the servers. These days with 20gigger drives in even the most basic client machines it'd be great to use the extra diskspace but I'd still rather serve up that extra diskspace via Samba, NFS, or some similar technology that is already built into the client OS's and I know how to secure. What happens when a desktop machine gets rebooted? That One Big Node has to deal with losing and regaining arbitrary large chunks of datastore at any time. Sounds hard. -- Don Marti What do we want? Free Dmitry! When do we want it? Now! http://zgp.org/~dmarti Free Dmitry: http://eff.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free the web, burn all GIFs: http://burnallgifs.org/ ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
