Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 06:28 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: > On 11/02/2015 06:26 AM, Steve Dougherty wrote: > > On 11/02/2015 06:21 AM, Bob Ham wrote: > >> On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 05:54 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: > >>> one > >>> may observe that we have not written up protocol documentation, making > >>> that our current strategy. > >> > >> I'm not sure what you mean; what are you referring to with the word > >> "that"? What is your current strategy? > > > > The current strategy is to not document things. I think calling it a > > strategy is a stretch because a strategy requires coordination and > > planning. No one has wanted to document the protocol, so it hasn't > > gotten documented. > > Er, that's poor phrasing. No one has wanted to document the protocol > enough to document it themselves. I'm not being insightful here - it > hasn't happened, so our "strategy" is to not do it. You're right, that's not a strategy. Regardless, I think there's some confusion here. I'm not talking about a strategy for creating a file containing information about the Freenet protocol. What I'm talking about a strategy for getting the protocol to a point where it's worth other people implementing it and then writing high quality documentation that allows them to do so, possibly even publishing an RFC describing it. It seems that nobody here believes that in five years' time Freenet developers will be publishing an RFC. Instead, people seem to be focussed on updating the website, worrying about user interface niggles and fretting over whether users can install new versions of Fred easily enough. I'm talking about a strategy for getting the project to a point where it can actually have meaningful impact on the world. There doesn't seem to be any direction in the project. There's some software and some kind of community around it but there seems to be no vision of how to move forward to a point where the project contributes to something wider. What is the priority of the project, is it to ensure that as many Windows users as possible have a little Freenet icon in their status tray? Or is it to play a role in creating a world where nobody really uses Windows because they recognise how massive a threat it is to their privacy and security? At the moment the priority seems to be the former and there seems to be no idea about how to approach the latter (a "strategy"). ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status
On 11/02/2015 08:02 AM, Bob Ham wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 06:28 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> On 11/02/2015 06:26 AM, Steve Dougherty wrote: >>> On 11/02/2015 06:21 AM, Bob Ham wrote: On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 05:54 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: > one > may observe that we have not written up protocol documentation, making > that our current strategy. I'm not sure what you mean; what are you referring to with the word "that"? What is your current strategy? >>> >>> The current strategy is to not document things. I think calling it a >>> strategy is a stretch because a strategy requires coordination and >>> planning. No one has wanted to document the protocol, so it hasn't >>> gotten documented. >> >> Er, that's poor phrasing. No one has wanted to document the protocol >> enough to document it themselves. I'm not being insightful here - it >> hasn't happened, so our "strategy" is to not do it. > > You're right, that's not a strategy. > > Regardless, I think there's some confusion here. I'm not talking about > a strategy for creating a file containing information about the Freenet > protocol. What I'm talking about a strategy for getting the protocol to > a point where it's worth other people implementing it and then writing > high quality documentation that allows them to do so, possibly even > publishing an RFC describing it. > > It seems that nobody here believes that in five years' time Freenet > developers will be publishing an RFC. Instead, people seem to be > focussed on updating the website, worrying about user interface niggles > and fretting over whether users can install new versions of Fred easily > enough. > > I'm talking about a strategy for getting the project to a point where it > can actually have meaningful impact on the world. There doesn't seem to > be any direction in the project. There's some software and some kind of > community around it but there seems to be no vision of how to move > forward to a point where the project contributes to something wider. > > What is the priority of the project, is it to ensure that as many > Windows users as possible have a little Freenet icon in their status > tray? Or is it to play a role in creating a world where nobody really > uses Windows because they recognise how massive a threat it is to their > privacy and security? At the moment the priority seems to be the former > and there seems to be no idea about how to approach the latter (a > "strategy"). I feel like you're belitting what work we do because we have not performed it in accordance with an overarching strategy. While you are correct that working toward a larger vision can be a very good thing, I'm hurt by that. I do have ideas for workflows I'd like to see Freenet support, and can go into them if you'd consider that enough to be a strategy. Do you have any suggestions to make? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
[freenet-dev] Multiple implementations considered harmful was Re: Project Status
On 02/11/15 13:02, Bob Ham wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 06:28 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> On 11/02/2015 06:26 AM, Steve Dougherty wrote: >>> On 11/02/2015 06:21 AM, Bob Ham wrote: On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 05:54 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: > one > may observe that we have not written up protocol documentation, making > that our current strategy. I'm not sure what you mean; what are you referring to with the word "that"? What is your current strategy? >>> The current strategy is to not document things. I think calling it a >>> strategy is a stretch because a strategy requires coordination and >>> planning. No one has wanted to document the protocol, so it hasn't >>> gotten documented. >> Er, that's poor phrasing. No one has wanted to document the protocol >> enough to document it themselves. I'm not being insightful here - it >> hasn't happened, so our "strategy" is to not do it. > You're right, that's not a strategy. > > Regardless, I think there's some confusion here. I'm not talking about > a strategy for creating a file containing information about the Freenet > protocol. What I'm talking about a strategy for getting the protocol to > a point where it's worth other people implementing it and then writing > high quality documentation that allows them to do so, possibly even > publishing an RFC describing it. > > It seems that nobody here believes that in five years' time Freenet > developers will be publishing an RFC. Instead, people seem to be > focussed on updating the website, worrying about user interface niggles > and fretting over whether users can install new versions of Fred easily > enough. Documentation is good. But multiple implementations just don't make sense until the protocol is somewhere close to "final". Even then they're problematic. Why do you think TCP still relies on packet loss to signal congestion, rather than ECN? Because there are thousands of buggy TCP firewalls which drop packets with the ECN bit set, or worse, home routers which crash completely when they see it! HTTP extensions work because extensions to one server do not affect anyone else. Freenet isn't like that. It's a distributed protocol, more like BGP or Bitcoin. We gain considerably from being able to change stuff without worrying too much about legacy incompatibilities, and given our limited resources, this is a good thing. Furthermore, alternative implementations would not be noticeably faster. They might have slightly lower overheads in memory and CPU, but at this point that's probably not the main problem anyway: If you have a datastore you need to have a certain amount of disk I/O, for example. The bottlenecks are elsewhere, on the whole. > I'm talking about a strategy for getting the project to a point where it > can actually have meaningful impact on the world. There doesn't seem to > be any direction in the project. There's some software and some kind of > community around it but there seems to be no vision of how to move > forward to a point where the project contributes to something wider. Making a difference is not a matter of standardisation. Which had the greater impact, POSIX or Linux? > What is the priority of the project, is it to ensure that as many > Windows users as possible have a little Freenet icon in their status > tray? Or is it to play a role in creating a world where nobody really > uses Windows because they recognise how massive a threat it is to their > privacy and security? At the moment the priority seems to be the former > and there seems to be no idea about how to approach the latter (a > "strategy"). What is it that you propose we do? Freeze the protocol so other people can implement it, even if it means we can never make a change to it again? What good would multiple barely compatible implementations do if no more people use the network? The key point is to solve the numerous fundamental problems which still exist in Freenet, to get more users, and especially to get more developers. None of that is helped by premature standardisation. Standardisation should happen after we've solved all the important problems, declared 1.0 or better 2.0, and have published rigorous proofs that everything always works. Which will probably never happen. It's much the same issue as packaging Freenet: We need a repository. We could even get into experimental/unstable. But fred cannot be in stable, because it means lots and lots of users with nodes which are several *years* out of date. I do agree that we need to be concerned for our non-Windows users. In particular, in the long run we will have to make Freenet run well on small Linux dedicated boxes (Pi's etc), because people won't have fixed computers. Of *course* we should document the protocol. We should document everything, to make life easier for new developers. But it's not a panacea. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing
Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet debian package
Am Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2015, 10:09:55 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > Unofficial plugins??? This is the part of the situation which worries me. Best wishes, Arne -- 1w6 sie zu achten, sie alle zu finden, in Spiele zu leiten und sacht zu verbinden. → http://1w6.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet debian package
Am Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2015, 11:07:57 schrieb Florent Daigniere: > On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 09:38 +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2015, 08:40:50 schrieb Arne > > Babenhauserheide: > > > > I'm not sure I understand why you'd get a vote on what will > > > > happen. > > > > > The part I’m talking about is the not-changing if not needed. > > > > Also I don’t see why I have to get a vote to voice an opinion. > > > > This is precisely why: you've no idea of what you're talking about. > > The "project" of splitting freenet-ext.jar up has been ongoing for over > half a decade now... yet you don't seem to be aware of it. I am aware of that. I was not aware that this included removing db4o. But following our discussion on IRC I wrote a message on FMS, Sone and my flog, asking people to tell us if there are thirdparty plugins relying on db4o. https://d6.gnutella2.info/freenet/USK@sUm3oJISSEU4pl2Is9qa1eRoCLyz6r2LPkEqlXc3~oc,yBEbf-IJrcB8Pe~gAd53DEEHgbugUkFSHtzzLqnYlbs,AQACAAE/random_babcom/164/#pluginsrelyingondb4oPleasecheck If the only plugins relying on db4o are WoT and Freetalk, all my worries are gone, since removing db4o from the node will rather help than hurt them. Best wishes, Arne -- 1w6 sie zu achten, sie alle zu finden, in Spiele zu leiten und sacht zu verbinden. → http://1w6.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 08:15 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: > I feel like you're belitting what work we do because we have not > performed it in accordance with an overarching strategy. I'm not trying to belittle anyone, I'm simply pointing out that there is a problem in how the project is going about achieving its goals. Or not, as the case may be. > I do have ideas for workflows I'd like to see Freenet > support, and can go into them if you'd consider that enough to be a > strategy. *Facepalm* Why are you concerned about what *I* consider to be a strategy? Why aren't you yourself concerned about making a plan for the project to achieve its goals? I wonder, is there an underlying problem that nobody cares enough? > Do you have any suggestions to make? Be extremely clear in what you want to achieve as a group and then set out how you intend to achieve that. At present there are some fairly specific but high-level goals outlined on the website. Unfortunately, there is no plan at all on how to achieve those goals. I can't suggest how you might go about determining what you want to achieve and how to do it because I don't know how the group works together. That is, how it communicates or comes to a consensus. Again I wonder, is there an underlying problem in that the group *doesn't* work together? ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status
On 02/11/15 21:57, Bob Ham wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 08:15 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: > >> I feel like you're belitting what work we do because we have not >> performed it in accordance with an overarching strategy. > I'm not trying to belittle anyone, I'm simply pointing out that there is > a problem in how the project is going about achieving its goals. Or > not, as the case may be. > >> I do have ideas for workflows I'd like to see Freenet >> support, and can go into them if you'd consider that enough to be a >> strategy. > *Facepalm* > > Why are you concerned about what *I* consider to be a strategy? Why > aren't you yourself concerned about making a plan for the project to > achieve its goals? > > I wonder, is there an underlying problem that nobody cares enough? > >> Do you have any suggestions to make? > Be extremely clear in what you want to achieve as a group and then set > out how you intend to achieve that. > > At present there are some fairly specific but high-level goals outlined > on the website. Unfortunately, there is no plan at all on how to > achieve those goals. > > I can't suggest how you might go about determining what you want to > achieve and how to do it because I don't know how the group works > together. That is, how it communicates or comes to a consensus. > > Again I wonder, is there an underlying problem in that the group > *doesn't* work together? Aren't all volunteer projects necessarily coalitions of people with differing goals? I mean, how much front-most leadership and strategy is actually possible? Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We have lots of disorganised masses of goals, e.g. the bug tracker. Trying to organise them is a good thing... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] High Speed Links
Am Sonntag, 1. November 2015, 14:27:50 schrieb Bob Ham: > On Sat, 2015-10-31 at 22:18 +0100, Bert Massop wrote: > > > Nor did I learn how documenting a protocol, > > what you seem to be advocating endlessly, would help just the slightest > > bit in getting there. > > I was assuming the audience was aware of how protocols are usually > developed on the Internet. Here is some information about how Internet > protocols are developed and published: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments Back when I was a moderator in the Gnutella Development Forum (The_GDF mailinglist) we did RFC style development. I enjoyed it very much and learned a lot about which later helped me during studying. But that was with on average 5 or more different teams, 2 of whom had at least 5 full-time paid developers each. The Internet is being developed by full-time paid staff at large companies and by researchers at major universities. In these environments, RFC style development makes sense. In contrast, Freenet is developed by a handful volunteers. We do the parts we want to see done, and those are at the moment either to improve the robustness of Freenet or to increase its utility for users. Also we cannot just hire someone to spec the protocol, and 40k$ wouldn’t suffice to get a developer with sufficient experience to lay down his or her current job and start working on documenting the Freenet protocol in RFC style. So if you want it done, you need to do it yourself, to find someone who wants to join Freenet development and document the protocol as a volunteer, or raise about 140k$ to be able to higher a professional for 2 years (I don’t know anyone with sufficient skills willing to lay down a permanent job for less than that in a temporary position). Best wishes, Arne signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 22:16 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Aren't all volunteer projects necessarily coalitions of people with > differing goals? No, many volunteer projects are coalitions of people with the same goals. > I mean, how much front-most leadership and strategy is > actually possible? Why not try it and find out? ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Multiple implementations considered harmful was Re: Project Status
On 02/11/15 23:47, Bob Ham wrote: >> Why do you think TCP still relies on packet loss to signal congestion, >> rather than ECN? Because there are thousands of buggy TCP firewalls >> which drop packets with the ECN bit set, or worse, home routers which >> crash completely when they see it! > > You would seriously argue that there should be one single implementation > of TCP? > > If there is a problem in the Freenet protocol, would you rather another > implementation highlighted it sooner or later? > >> We gain considerably from being able to change >> stuff without worrying too much about legacy incompatibilities > > You said you're gaining something. This implies some set of values > which determine this to be a "gain" rather than a "loss". What are > those values? What is the goal you're working towards that has made it > clear this is valued as a gain and not a loss? > Personally, I think that we, as in people working on new internet architectures, should take a step back and consider the problem in a grander scale and with greater foresight. Learn from other new projects, and think about lessons that Freenet can teach other projects. At the moment we (the world) have teams working without much global co-ordination that would be required for this sort of large-scale engineering infrastructure project to succeed. I ranted about this on IRC a while back, and I can go into it again, but I'll stop here. I agree with Matthew that a second implementation is a waste of time, given the current status of the project. But my reasons for this position are guided by the above principles, whilst I would assume Matthew's reasons are different. Second implementations are useful in certain situations, but *not this situation*. But anyway, all of that is irrelevant compared to the MAIN point about a second implementation - who is going to do the work for it? Talk is cheap, show me the code man! However, I agree with Bob's original point that there should be more documentation. Again, I refer to the principles from the first paragraph. Currently all of these "new internet" architectures are silos that don't talk to each other much. Lots of modern projects are running into problems Freenet semi-solved several years ago, running into the same stumbling blocks, making the same compromises, blah blah blah. Documentation and constant comparison and awareness of other projects is a good thing worth spending a significant amount of time on. Fucking around with Java 1.6 gives you diminishing returns. Don't get trapped by the sunk costs fallacy. There are lots of common problems to be solved; we should take advantage of the FOSS nature of the project and try to figure out and define unified statements of these problems, that the whole world can then gather together to solve. Looking inward just for the interests of The Freenet Project won't ever scale, it's not taking advantage of the power of FOSS, and we might as well be writing proprietary software. Like a certain large company when they do/did throw-it-over-the-wall "open source" software releases. I have a shit ton more to say about this, but I'd prefer to have a constructive discussion than to debate the finer semantics of what I said, so forgive me that I will leave this thread and not worry too much about responding to any specific criticisms. You can catch me over private email or IRC. X -- GPG: 4096R/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE git://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Multiple implementations considered harmful was Re: Project Status
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 18:18 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 02/11/15 13:02, Bob Ham wrote: > > It seems that nobody here believes that in five years' time Freenet > > developers will be publishing an RFC. Instead, people seem to be > > focussed on updating the website, worrying about user interface niggles > > and fretting over whether users can install new versions of Fred easily > > enough. > Documentation is good. > > But multiple implementations just don't make sense until the protocol is > somewhere close to "final". Even then they're problematic. I disagree; having more than one implementation inevitably highlights problems in both the protocol and each implementation, for the better of all. > Why do you think TCP still relies on packet loss to signal congestion, > rather than ECN? Because there are thousands of buggy TCP firewalls > which drop packets with the ECN bit set, or worse, home routers which > crash completely when they see it! You would seriously argue that there should be one single implementation of TCP? If there is a problem in the Freenet protocol, would you rather another implementation highlighted it sooner or later? > We gain considerably from being able to change > stuff without worrying too much about legacy incompatibilities You said you're gaining something. This implies some set of values which determine this to be a "gain" rather than a "loss". What are those values? What is the goal you're working towards that has made it clear this is valued as a gain and not a loss? > Making a difference is not a matter of standardisation. Standardisation is not the same thing as publishing a protocol. Regardless, standardisation considerably increases the likelihood that a protocol will make an impact. > Which had the greater impact, POSIX or Linux? You're giving an example of standardisation of Unix-like systems whereas the issue at hand is the standardisation of protocols. A much better question would be: which had the greater impact, IP or IPX? > > What is the priority of the project, is it to ensure that as many > > Windows users as possible have a little Freenet icon in their status > > tray? Or is it to play a role in creating a world where nobody really > > uses Windows because they recognise how massive a threat it is to their > > privacy and security? At the moment the priority seems to be the former > > and there seems to be no idea about how to approach the latter (a > > "strategy"). > What is it that you propose we do? Freeze the protocol so other people > can implement it, even if it means we can never make a change to it > again? What do you mean by "freeze" the protocol? > What good would multiple barely compatible implementations do if > no more people use the network? Why would multiple implementations necessarily be barely compatible? > The key point is to solve the numerous fundamental problems which still > exist in Freenet What are these problems? Are they described anywhere? Is there a plan on how to solve them? > to get more users, and especially to get more > developers. What are the goals you're trying to achieve, which make getting more users and more developers valued as a gain? > None of that is helped by premature standardisation. > Standardisation should happen after we've solved all the important > problems, declared 1.0 or better 2.0, and have published rigorous proofs > that everything always works. It is not premature to document the existing protocol. Documenting the protocol is not standardisation. Documents can be versioned. It's highly likely that a lot, if not most of the protocol will be unchanged between now and 1.0. At the same time, publishing a protocol document will attract developers, something you see as a gain. It will also serve to clarify the existing problems and may even aid in finding solutions. Similarly, it will illuminate undiscovered problems in the current protocol. It will also move the project forward and it will move it forward to a place where publishing a 1.0 protocol is a realistic possibility rather than a pipe dream. > Which will probably never happen. That sounds like simply a defeatist attitude. Which, of course, will ensure that it does indeed never happen. Unless you believe there are specific reasons why Freenet can't work? And if that's the case then why would you bother communicating about the project at all? > Of *course* we should document the protocol. We should document > everything, to make life easier for new developers. *Facepalm* > But it's not a panacea. A panacea for which problems? What problems does the project have? What is the strategy for solving them? ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] High Speed Links
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 22:14 +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > The Internet is being developed by full-time paid staff at large > companies and by researchers at major universities. > > In these environments, RFC style development makes sense. > > In contrast, Freenet is developed by a handful volunteers. In which case it's even more critical to be clear about what you're trying to achieve and how the things you spend your time on help to achieve it. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status
On 11/01/2015 09:47 AM, Bob Ham wrote: > On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 12:07 +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> On Saturday, 31. October 2015 16:27:42 Bob Ham wrote: ... >> 4. incorrect assumption: There is no clear strategy about the >>documentation of the protocol. >> >> The current clear strategy includes > > Are you saying there is now a strategy for publishing documentation on > the protocol? Has the situation changed since I asked on IRC and found > an absence of such a strategy? If the situation has changed, can you > provide me with a reference to the strategy? The strategy is not written up and adopted formally. It's more that one may observe that we have not written up protocol documentation, making that our current strategy. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status
On 11/02/2015 06:26 AM, Steve Dougherty wrote: > On 11/02/2015 06:21 AM, Bob Ham wrote: >> On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 05:54 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: >>> one >>> may observe that we have not written up protocol documentation, making >>> that our current strategy. >> >> I'm not sure what you mean; what are you referring to with the word >> "that"? What is your current strategy? > > The current strategy is to not document things. I think calling it a > strategy is a stretch because a strategy requires coordination and > planning. No one has wanted to document the protocol, so it hasn't > gotten documented. Er, that's poor phrasing. No one has wanted to document the protocol enough to document it themselves. I'm not being insightful here - it hasn't happened, so our "strategy" is to not do it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 05:54 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: > one > may observe that we have not written up protocol documentation, making > that our current strategy. I'm not sure what you mean; what are you referring to with the word "that"? What is your current strategy? ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status
On 11/02/2015 06:21 AM, Bob Ham wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 05:54 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> one >> may observe that we have not written up protocol documentation, making >> that our current strategy. > > I'm not sure what you mean; what are you referring to with the word > "that"? What is your current strategy? The current strategy is to not document things. I think calling it a strategy is a stretch because a strategy requires coordination and planning. No one has wanted to document the protocol, so it hasn't gotten documented. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
