[freenet-support] Re: Integration in 0.7
Matthew Toseland wrote: > (snip of already discussed stuff) >>In practice you will have a big opennet unsuitable for >>your test purposes and some small darknets, maybe unknown to you, and >>probably so small to be of no value to your intention of testing the >>global scalable darknet. Aren't WASTE networks already useful for these >>people? They don't scale but they serve for reduced groups with very >>specific interests. > > > Why do you think it would not scale? It CAN scale. It is possible for it > to route on a very large network. And my friends and my friend's friends > are two different sets of people. Especially in the initial situation in > the West, where there is no persecution and therefore no need to require > them to be Ultimately Trustworthy. Just because WASTE doesn't scale does > NOT mean Freenet can't scale. I was specifically refering to WASTE, not freenet. What I was saying is that for small darknets there's already WASTE. >>Maybe I've missed something in the discussion, so, will be there some >>forced incompatibility in the nodes to prevent adding trusted and >>untrusted links? > > Don't tempt me. :) > >>The only outcome I can foresee is that one of the two networks will >>prevail. Why? Either because the darknet routing works and the opennet >>don't, either because it works in the opennet and all the content is >>there. Once that happens, the network will be no longer a pure darknet >>in any case. > > And then they destroy the opennet. And we're stuffed. > >>So, if I've understood you right (and please correct me if not), your >>main concern is to have a big darknet with the right topology. > > Yes. I frankly have a hard time figuring how this can be achieved. When 0.7 is out I guess you and Ian will be the only persons I could ask for their references, and how would you trust me? What if I have a single trusted reference, and he's not 24/7 online? >>What do you think about this: use some sophisticated management of >>links. You have two categories: trusted and untrusted. You may transfer >>your links between these, and activate these independently. >> >>The network can get a quick start with people using untrusted links. >>When the network has a reasonable size, it may be easy for people to >>find trusted friends. At that point, you make their links trusted and >>deactivate the untrusted ones. Or you reduce the number of them until >>you need these no more. So the network will progressively mutate into >>darknet form. Feasible? > > How do you find these links? Central introduction servers? Path folding? > Either way the information is still out there, and the nodes can still > be harvested. I'm struggling about how we could do this. I'll come back later with any ideas. > It may be necessary to have some limited, local link mobility; this has > been discussed before but as usual everyone was asleep. But it must not > be possible for links to migrate right across the network, because that > will allow harvesting.
[freenet-support] Re: Integration in 0.7
[Ian] Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is "clusters of isolated dark nodes", which is worse? >>> [Matthew] >>>There would be no real reason to grow the darknet, that's the >>>point. If >>>the only way to connect (easily) is by growing the darknet, it will >>>grow. Or not. Maybe it will simply stagnate. The most probably scenery in my eyes is that people will want to join the darknet. To achieve this, they will connect to untrusted people. In practice, the darknet will be the opennet. There will be online repositories of "trusted" nodes to connect to. I see no easy way to find trusted links until the network is ubiquitous. And even then, how many trusted links are expected per node? In a critical environment, I would not have more than one or two people of my confidence. More probably there would be no one who couldn't turn a mole in harsh times. [Ian] >>So you propose to force people to run darknet nodes even though they >>might be quite satisfied to use the opennet? I don't believe in >>forcing users to do things against their will. Rightly so IMO, because they don't follow. [Matthew] > Eh? I don't understand. If they want to use the opennet, they can use > the opennet. Users want to access *all* the available content in the most safe manner. For some, it will be just through trusted neighbors. For others, it will be untrusted ones. [Matthew] >The result of which is that it does not tell >us anything about the viability of the global darknet. And WHEN, >not if, >the opennet is compromized, there is no global darknet. Just a few >disconnected nodes. And at that point, forced by circumstances, people in the disconnected nodes will do the *real* effort to find trusted neighbors. [Ian] >>People get a choice. If people chose to leave their nodes open, then >>so be it. It isn't our place to force people to do one thing or the >>other. [Matthew] > In which case the whole experiment will have been totally pointless, and > there will be NOTHING to build on in the future, because we won't have > actually prototyped the globally scalable darknet. A legitimate concern. But. If there are two networks, except for those under critical risk to their lives, people will chose the easy one, the one where all other people (and content) is. In practice you will have a big opennet unsuitable for your test purposes and some small darknets, maybe unknown to you, and probably so small to be of no value to your intention of testing the global scalable darknet. Aren't WASTE networks already useful for these people? They don't scale but they serve for reduced groups with very specific interests. Maybe I've missed something in the discussion, so, will be there some forced incompatibility in the nodes to prevent adding trusted and untrusted links? The only outcome I can foresee is that one of the two networks will prevail. Why? Either because the darknet routing works and the opennet don't, either because it works in the opennet and all the content is there. Once that happens, the network will be no longer a pure darknet in any case. So, if I've understood you right (and please correct me if not), your main concern is to have a big darknet with the right topology. What do you think about this: use some sophisticated management of links. You have two categories: trusted and untrusted. You may transfer your links between these, and activate these independently. The network can get a quick start with people using untrusted links. When the network has a reasonable size, it may be easy for people to find trusted friends. At that point, you make their links trusted and deactivate the untrusted ones. Or you reduce the number of them until you need these no more. So the network will progressively mutate into darknet form. Feasible?
[freenet-support] Re: Integration in 0.7
Matthew Toseland wrote: (snip of already discussed stuff) In practice you will have a big opennet unsuitable for your test purposes and some small darknets, maybe unknown to you, and probably so small to be of no value to your intention of testing the global scalable darknet. Aren't WASTE networks already useful for these people? They don't scale but they serve for reduced groups with very specific interests. Why do you think it would not scale? It CAN scale. It is possible for it to route on a very large network. And my friends and my friend's friends are two different sets of people. Especially in the initial situation in the West, where there is no persecution and therefore no need to require them to be Ultimately Trustworthy. Just because WASTE doesn't scale does NOT mean Freenet can't scale. I was specifically refering to WASTE, not freenet. What I was saying is that for small darknets there's already WASTE. Maybe I've missed something in the discussion, so, will be there some forced incompatibility in the nodes to prevent adding trusted and untrusted links? Don't tempt me. :) The only outcome I can foresee is that one of the two networks will prevail. Why? Either because the darknet routing works and the opennet don't, either because it works in the opennet and all the content is there. Once that happens, the network will be no longer a pure darknet in any case. And then they destroy the opennet. And we're stuffed. So, if I've understood you right (and please correct me if not), your main concern is to have a big darknet with the right topology. Yes. I frankly have a hard time figuring how this can be achieved. When 0.7 is out I guess you and Ian will be the only persons I could ask for their references, and how would you trust me? What if I have a single trusted reference, and he's not 24/7 online? What do you think about this: use some sophisticated management of links. You have two categories: trusted and untrusted. You may transfer your links between these, and activate these independently. The network can get a quick start with people using untrusted links. When the network has a reasonable size, it may be easy for people to find trusted friends. At that point, you make their links trusted and deactivate the untrusted ones. Or you reduce the number of them until you need these no more. So the network will progressively mutate into darknet form. Feasible? How do you find these links? Central introduction servers? Path folding? Either way the information is still out there, and the nodes can still be harvested. I'm struggling about how we could do this. I'll come back later with any ideas. It may be necessary to have some limited, local link mobility; this has been discussed before but as usual everyone was asleep. But it must not be possible for links to migrate right across the network, because that will allow harvesting. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Re: Which Linux for freenet?
daniele wrote: I think it is indifferent. Personally I have Debian. But any other distro would support Java, and Freenet needs only java. Yep, Mandrake 10.1 here and no worries. [Anon] Anon User ha scritto: -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE- Message-type: plaintext It sounds like a stupid question perhaps, but I'm currently on windows and am giving serious thought and study time to at minimum switching to a windows - - linux dual boot arrangment. So far I'm leaning toward either Debian or Mandriva, does freenet prefer one better than the other? Or does it matter much if it's one of the 'mainstream' distro's? Thanks -END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE- ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Re: Firewall - allowing Javaw.exe everything is not good
Matthew Toseland wrote: How do you suggest we fix the problem? If freenet was compilable that might help I suppose. Hopefully 0.7 will be. This means that compability with gjc is a feature of 0.7? On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 07:56:42PM +0400, Danila Medvedev wrote: Under win2k Freenet (latest version, downloaded webinstall without Java - Java 1.4.2_06 already installed) connections show up to my firewall (AtGuard!) as javaw.exe In process explorer I see javaw.exe as a child process of freenet.exe. Creating a general firewall rule permitting all outgoing connections requires me to allow them not just for freenet, but for all java applications. This is not very good from a security standpoint. It would be preferable if this problem (albeit a minor problem right now) was somehow fixed in the future. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Won't Start
Kevin Steen wrote: On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 13:49, Todd Walton wrote: On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:35:45 +0100, Alex R. Mosteo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting, I will try to start with a clean freenet.ini. Thought I haven't changed any setting (directly nor with the configtool) when freenet ceased to work. Same here. The other problem to check for is a zero-byte or corrupted 'node' file. Rename the file and see if Freenet starts. If it still doesn't start, put the original file back so as to preserve your node's identity You were right. My node file was truncated (I noticed after comparing with a new one). Furthermore, I'm almost sure it was due to a temporary space sortage in my hard disk. What's the utility of preserving the node identity? What I lose when changing it? Thanks, A. Mosteo. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Won't Start
Todd Walton wrote: Freenet was running fine. I rebooted my computer into Windows and Freenet won't run. To repeat: it was running fine before, and I didn't change anything. I've uninstalled Freenet (keeping the store and route data) and reinstalled it. It didn't work. When I start Freenet I just get the bunny with the up arrows in my system tray. The up arrows go on forever, Freenet never starting. Same here. One day it worked, next reboot nothing. I've tried deleting the datastore (see below) but to no avail. My logs say I have a clock skew problem, but that's never stopped it before. I've had the clock skew problem for a long time. There are no other errors in the log. My logs show two exceptions related with input/output. I can't remember and I don't have it here, but it was something about an unexpected EOF. That's why I wiped out the datastore. This sudden death of freenet in windows already happened to me some months ago. Recently, I erased all traces of freenet from my computer and reinstalled 5100. It worked great for some days. I'll try to dig out the error log message. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Re: Freenet Won't Start
Constantine Dokolas wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds like possibly an error in the config file rather than an error in the datastore... I'd suggest *not* using the windows configtool at any time. I've noticed it inserting bad character sequences into the config file. Is that true? I know it *used* to do that (about 2 yrs ago) but I remember spending significant time and effort fixing it. Do'h! Forgot to mention that it should be easy to check if that's the actual problem with a hex editor or a good text editor. Interesting, I will try to start with a clean freenet.ini. Thought I haven't changed any setting (directly nor with the configtool) when freenet ceased to work. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Re: ANNOUNCE: DFI (Dolphin's Freenet Index) is now back online!
Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/DFI// I just completed my first successful insert of DFI today since returning to freenet just yesterday. Please try using it so that it will begin to propagate again as quickly as possible. Due to the fact that I'm just starting back with freenet, the index is still rather smallish, but we should be seeing it grow with each passing day as my node's routing improves and the spider successfully locates more and more sites. Please try to bear with us during this early phasing back in of the site. Thanks! The 5100 build is working quite well for me, and today I've tried a bunch of random sites in TFE and all of them have appeared in a very short time. It will be interesting to see how a crawler performs starting from scratch. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
