> "Sebastian" == Sebastian Späth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sebastian> Wininstaller updated in
Sebastian> http://freenetproject.org/snapshots: Thanks to
Sebastian> [EMAIL PROTECTED] for patches and ideas, they
Sebastian> were welcome and integrated (although not the proposed
> I see there a vicious circle coming up, which I don't really like.
>
> Mind, I am not against splitting per se, it might be appropriate for
> *big* files, but why should my 386kb .gif be splitted in two parts?
386kb is pretty big for a GIF.
What is it, animated?
-- Emil
lable
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/5d78bad2/attachment.pgp>
Wininstaller updated in http://freenetproject.org/snapshots:
Thanks to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for patches and ideas, they were
welcome and integrated (although not the proposed splashscreen :-))
- Version including Java available (only installed if no Java can be
detected)
- FProxy and Javax turned
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:21:57PM +0200, Adam Wern wrote:
> Two questions
>
> 1. Does redundancy make streaming content from freenet impossible?
> (I mean without having the whole file in store) Or has it never
> been possible?
It doesn't have to, I guess it depends on the scheme used.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Patrick Oscar Boykin wrote:
> PPS: couldn't this all have been done in "userspace"? One could easily
> make a tool that would allow you to do splitfiles in 0.3 by downloading
> some MetaData file which describes where to get all the pieces.
>
It is. See the metadataspec f
Two questions
1. Does redundancy make streaming content from freenet impossible?
(I mean without having the whole file in store) Or has it never
been possible?
2. Will our redundancy recreate the all missing parts and put them
in store, or will it just keep the downloaded minimum se
F12 E72F B68F 5B2D C368 3BCA 36D7 CF28
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/3a1ad387/attachment.pgp>
nt = 159A FA02 DF12 E72F B68F 5B2D C368 3BCA 36D7 CF28
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/4be637fe/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 02:49:17PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:02:24AM -0700, Patrick Oscar Boykin wrote:
> <>
> > To sum it up, in the above example, with a freenet with 99% success
> > rate, and 2MB splitfiles, an ISO image can be successfully downloaded
> > with pr
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 02:22:51PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:07:23AM +0100, toad wrote:
> > But what clients will do, most likely, is request all pieces and use whatever
> > comes first, improving latency.
>
> Which for all intents and purposes is fine. The real pr
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:02:24AM -0700, Patrick Oscar Boykin wrote:
<>
> To sum it up, in the above example, with a freenet with 99% success
> rate, and 2MB splitfiles, an ISO image can be successfully downloaded
> with probability 0.38% (yes, that's less than 1% not 38%), on the other
> hand, us
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:07:23AM +0100, toad wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:07:51AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
< >
> > I don't believe there has been any significant questioning of redundant
> > splitting since more than a year ago. The hit against network
> > performance because there is
> > I see there a vicious circle coming up, which I don't really like.
> >
> > Mind, I am not against splitting per se, it might be appropriate for
> > *big* files, but why should my 386kb .gif be splitted in two parts?
>
> 386kb is pretty big for a GIF.
> What is it, animated?
If the stupidity
: thelema314 at bigfoot.comIf you love something, set it free.
GPG 1536g/B9C5D1F7 fpr:075A A3F7 F70B 1397 345D A67E 70AA 820B A806 F95D
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/28f5451a/attachment.pgp>
Hi everyone,
Please find below (and attached in word) an Assignment of Copyright in
Revisions of Freenet document.
The purpose of this document, modeled on a GNU public license doc
(Assignment of Copyright in Revisions of GNU Classpath, Essential
Libraries for Java), is to transfer individual dev
Hi everyone,
Please find below (and attached in word) an Assignment of Copyright in
Revisions of Freenet document.
The purpose of this document, modeled on a GNU public license doc
(Assignment of Copyright in Revisions of GNU Classpath, Essential
Libraries for Java), is to transfer individual de
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:00:19AM +0200, Sebastian Sp?th wrote:
> thelema wrote:
>
> > I'm just suprised that everyone now seems to agree that we need
> > redundancy when before everyone seemed to be saying "hell no, keep that
> > redundancy away", and I had to compromise with a system that allow
thelema wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2001, Ian Clarke wrote:
Sorry to interrupt your exiting discussion, but I don't consider it that
relevant anyway as:
Both your options coexist/will exist in peace anyway without any FCP. a)
the installer automatically creates MyRef.ref on install and b)it (will
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:19:46AM -0500, thelema wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
< >
> > It hardly matters whether retrieval success is 90% or 99%, if you are
> > trying retrieve 100 parts without redundancy you are still fucked (2e-5%
> > or 36% success). In a system where re
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:07:51AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:19:46AM -0500, thelema wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> < >
> > > It hardly matters whether retrieval success is 90% or 99%, if you are
> > > trying retrieve 100 parts without redund
thelema wrote:
> I'm just suprised that everyone now seems to agree that we need
> redundancy when before everyone seemed to be saying "hell no, keep that
> redundancy away", and I had to compromise with a system that allowed
> both redundant and non-redundant usage.
Not everyone agrees on the s
Gianni Johansson wrote:
> Now that freetheneo mentions it, I'm thinking that maybe you have a bad
> freenet-ext.jar file.
> I hope it's this simple...
Darn, I compiled it straight from CVS, but moved just the .class files
over (I usually use the -d(-D?) option to compile directly to my target
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Patrick Oscar Boykin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:19:46AM -0500, thelema wrote:
> > I'd like to clarify my position, which probably seems to be against
> > redundancy if you just read the above, but I really think that we should
> > try non-redundant splitfiles and if
..
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/573477c9/attachment.pgp>
Derek Glidden wrote:
>> I invite anyone with a Distro not listed in the README file to try
>> compiling the source and testing the executables.
>>
>> I'm curious to know if it builds OK on Windows/Cygwin as well.
>
> Builds with no warnings on Solaris 7 with some Makefile mods to do
> -lsocket an
ailable
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/30d20f12/attachment.pgp>
chment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/df49351b/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Adam Wern wrote:
> Two questions
>
> 1. Does redundancy make streaming content from freenet impossible?
> (I mean without having the whole file in store) Or has it never
> been possible?
>
Depends on what you mean by streaming. If you want any sort of
guaranteed r
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:21:57PM +0200, Adam Wern wrote:
> Two questions
>
> 1. Does redundancy make streaming content from freenet impossible?
> (I mean without having the whole file in store) Or has it never
> been possible?
It doesn't have to, I guess it depends on the scheme used.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Zlatin Balevsky wrote:
> I remember long time ago (1993) there was a
> compression program that had the feature of adding a
> special checksum which was 2-5% of the size of the
> file and then could restore a rather significan number
> of missing or corrupt segments.
>
sound
On Tue, 09 Oct 2001, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:21:24AM -0500, thelema wrote:
> > I don't understand why it makes more sense for fproxy to give your your
> > noderef. Can you explain this?
>
> It doesn't nescessarily, that is simply one example of how the FCP
> functionality
> > I see there a vicious circle coming up, which I don't really like.
> >
> > Mind, I am not against splitting per se, it might be appropriate for
> > *big* files, but why should my 386kb .gif be splitted in two parts?
>
> 386kb is pretty big for a GIF.
> What is it, animated?
If the stupidit
Two questions
1. Does redundancy make streaming content from freenet impossible?
(I mean without having the whole file in store) Or has it never
been possible?
2. Will our redundancy recreate the all missing parts and put them
in store, or will it just keep the downloaded minimum s
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:02:24AM -0700, Patrick Oscar Boykin wrote:
<>
> To sum it up, in the above example, with a freenet with 99% success
> rate, and 2MB splitfiles, an ISO image can be successfully downloaded
> with probability 0.38% (yes, that's less than 1% not 38%), on the other
> hand, u
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:07:23AM +0100, toad wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:07:51AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
< >
> > I don't believe there has been any significant questioning of redundant
> > splitting since more than a year ago. The hit against network
> > performance because there i
I remember long time ago (1993) there was a
compression program that had the feature of adding a
special checksum which was 2-5% of the size of the
file and then could restore a rather significan number
of missing or corrupt segments.
I remember personally zeroing out 100 disk sectors of
a file an
I remember long time ago (1993) there was a
compression program that had the feature of adding a
special checksum which was 2-5% of the size of the
file and then could restore a rather significan number
of missing or corrupt segments.
I remember personally zeroing out 100 disk sectors of
a file a
ICQ: 5118680
Key fingerprint = 159A FA02 DF12 E72F B68F 5B2D C368 3BCA 36D7 CF28
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/3508db3a/attachment.pgp>
do you think is best?
Oscar.
--
boykin at pobox.comhttp://pobox.com/~boykinICQ: 5118680
Key fingerprint = 159A FA02 DF12 E72F B68F 5B2D C368 3BCA 36D7 CF28
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/a4e3b027/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:19:46AM -0500, thelema wrote:
> I'd like to clarify my position, which probably seems to be against
> redundancy if you just read the above, but I really think that we should
> try non-redundant splitfiles and if they really can't be requested
> successfully, we should t
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:07:51AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:19:46AM -0500, thelema wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> < >
> > > It hardly matters whether retrieval success is 90% or 99%, if you are
> > > trying retrieve 100 parts without redun
> I see there a vicious circle coming up, which I don't really like.
>
> Mind, I am not against splitting per se, it might be appropriate for
> *big* files, but why should my 386kb .gif be splitted in two parts?
386kb is pretty big for a GIF.
What is it, animated?
-- Emil
___
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 08:37:53AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 09:29:15PM -0500, thelema wrote:
> > > Inserting large files is pointless anyway until we get redundant
> > > splitfiles (see GJ's freesite for why).
> > >
> > Weren't you one of the people insisting that we wou
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 05:23:36PM -0500, thelema wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2001, Ian Clarke wrote:
< >
> > It is nothing to do with having something published in Freenet, it is
> > the simple mathematics of it. See GJs freesite.
> >
> I've read the freesite. That argument was proposed when this
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:00:19AM +0200, Sebastian Späth wrote:
> thelema wrote:
>
> > I'm just suprised that everyone now seems to agree that we need
> > redundancy when before everyone seemed to be saying "hell no, keep that
> > redundancy away", and I had to compromise with a system that allo
thelema wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2001, Ian Clarke wrote:
Sorry to interrupt your exiting discussion, but I don't consider it that
relevant anyway as:
Both your options coexist/will exist in peace anyway without any FCP. a)
the installer automatically creates MyRef.ref on install and b)it (will
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:19:46AM -0500, thelema wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
< >
> > It hardly matters whether retrieval success is 90% or 99%, if you are
> > trying retrieve 100 parts without redundancy you are still fucked (2e-5%
> > or 36% success). In a system where r
thelema wrote:
> I'm just suprised that everyone now seems to agree that we need
> redundancy when before everyone seemed to be saying "hell no, keep that
> redundancy away", and I had to compromise with a system that allowed
> both redundant and non-redundant usage.
Not everyone agrees on the
Gianni Johansson wrote:
> Now that freetheneo mentions it, I'm thinking that maybe you have a bad
> freenet-ext.jar file.
> I hope it's this simple...
Darn, I compiled it straight from CVS, but moved just the .class files
over (I usually use the -d(-D?) option to compile directly to my targe
Derek Glidden wrote:
>> I invite anyone with a Distro not listed in the README file to try
>> compiling the source and testing the executables.
>>
>> I'm curious to know if it builds OK on Windows/Cygwin as well.
>
> Builds with no warnings on Solaris 7 with some Makefile mods to do
> -lsocket a
.comIf you love something, set it free.
GPG 1536g/B9C5D1F7 fpr:075A A3F7 F70B 1397 345D A67E 70AA 820B A806 F95D
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/72e6275e/attachment.pgp>
thing, set it free.
GPG 1536g/B9C5D1F7 fpr:075A A3F7 F70B 1397 345D A67E 70AA 820B A806 F95D
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/3493e12b/attachment.pgp>
the "flame war" category.
Thelema
--
E-mail: thelema314 at bigfoot.comIf you love something, set it free.
GPG 1536g/B9C5D1F7 fpr:075A A3F7 F70B 1397 345D A67E 70AA 820B A806 F95D
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/fd117a0d/attachment.pgp>
54 matches
Mail list logo
