On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
>> On Friday 16 May 2008 00:52, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>>> >>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Thursday 15 May 2008 06:11, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Sunday 11 May 2008 11:24, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> >> Author: j16sdiz
>> >> Date: 2008-05-11
f you want freenet to run on embedded systems you will have some
tradeoffs to make at some point... I do think that fproxy and its
dependencies (the content-filter could be pluggable too) are nothing but
overhead.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/7584bb6b/attachment.pgp>
gt; Ian.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/d2c17fed/attachment.pgp>
ossibly as you suggest.
>
What about fproxy; shall it be separated from fred too ? I think it
should be a plugin to the node.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/1d35c94b/attachment.pgp>
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Colin Davis wrote:
>> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
>> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
>> no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
>> use sourceforge, or
edia coverage and promotion that the
> > project is generating now, onto the applications.
>
> I agree that we should certainly direct user's attention to the
> various client apps, as Java does.
Many of them don't even have webpages.
>
> Ian.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/62726bfe/attachment.pgp>
kness.
>
> The standard AES is not compatible to our Rijndael implementation
> I guess it's not worth breaking the backward compatibility in 0.7.1.
It might be if it's more secure...?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/37c3d1d8/attachment.pgp>
irst lookup,
reducing the number of seeks... but then maybe there's a downside?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermai
f
> that is hosted on our servers being officially endorsed by us for security
> reasons.
> >
> > -Colin
>
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/262a02f6/attachment.pgp>
ugh on AMD64 systems FEC may be a problem.
- Constant heavy disk I/O.
All of these are things we should address in 0.7.1.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/514ccb60/attachment.pgp>
-
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/93b26c90/attachment.pgp>
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
>
>>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
>>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
>>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps.
>>>
>>
rchy.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/d6670acd/attachment.pgp>
> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
> no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
> use sourceforge, or google code, or set up their own website.
>
>
For the
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
> wrote:
That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
do with Freenet.
>>>
>>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet?
>>
>> That's an assumption, not a fact. As far
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daigni?re
wrote:
>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps.
>
> Heh, java has a frozen API... last time I
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> Strongly agreed. From the point of view of a new user, or a journalist, FMS is
> part of Freenet. It is highly unlikely to get any independant publicity, even
> if we don't bundle it. All that happens if we don't bundle it is it doesn't
>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis wrote:
> I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
> would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
> by application development.. Currently, when Freenet makes a new
> revision, that hits Slashdot,
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Friday 16 May 2008 00:52, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland
>> >>
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 13 May 2008 17:10, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> >> Author: j16sdiz
>> >> Date: 2008-05-13
No, it's not.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> Very nice, is this complete?
>
> On Sunday 11 May 2008 08:27, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> Author: j16sdiz
>> Date: 2008-05-11 07:27:21 + (Sun, 11 May 2008)
>> New Revision: 19887
>>
>> Added:
>>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 May 2008 17:10, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> Author: j16sdiz
>> Date: 2008-05-13 16:10:32 + (Tue, 13 May 2008)
>> New Revision: 19912
>>
>> Modified:
>>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Sunday 11 May 2008 18:05, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> Author: j16sdiz
>> Date: 2008-05-11 17:05:03 + (Sun, 11 May 2008)
>> New Revision: 19897
>>
>> Modified:
>>
>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Sunday 11 May 2008 18:05, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> Author: j16sdiz
>> Date: 2008-05-11 17:05:03 + (Sun, 11 May 2008)
>> New Revision: 19897
>>
>> Modified:
>>
>
Ian Clarke wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
do with Freenet.
Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet?
That's an assumption, not a fact. As far as I
On Thursday 15 May 2008 21:28, Michael Rogers wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Bluetooth?
Even less bandwidth than wifi, no? We need several gigabits (over a range
measured in feet) for it to be viable.
Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that
even a
On Thursday 15 May 2008 23:09, Colin Davis wrote:
Ian Clarke wrote:
I do agree that bundling can make user's lives easier, but it should
be client apps bundling Freenet, not the other way around.
Ian.
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
would
On Friday 16 May 2008 09:53, Jano wrote:
Ian Clarke wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
do with Freenet.
Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 15 May 2008 06:11, Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 11:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: j16sdiz
Date: 2008-05-11
Okay, I'm modifying my compromise solution slightly here:
The installer itself should be lean and mean, and not bundle anything apart
from the smaller plugins.
At the end of the post-install wizard, we show the user a brief explanation of
each application, and ask them whether they want it.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 16 May 2008 00:52, Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 16 May 2008 00:52, Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 15 May
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
by application development.. Currently, when Freenet makes a new
revision, that
On Friday 16 May 2008 15:21, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
by application development..
* Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-16 09:21:10]:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
by application
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strongly agreed. From the point of view of a new user, or a journalist, FMS is
part of Freenet. It is highly unlikely to get any independant publicity, even
if we don't bundle it. All that happens if we don't bundle it
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
follow that Java should bundle all of these apps.
Heh, java has a frozen API...
* Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-16 09:35:34]:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
follow that Java should
an empty indent verification message. =(
2008/5/16 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
___
cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvs
___
Devl mailing list
On Friday 16 May 2008 15:35, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about fproxy; shall it be separated from fred too ? I think it
should be a plugin to the node.
Fproxy is the means through which the node is configured, so it
Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
use sourceforge, or google code, or set up their own website.
For the same
Ian Clarke wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
follow that Java should bundle all of these apps.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Colin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
use
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian and I have eventually come to the conclusion that we should include db4o,
and use it for our various persistence needs. I eventually reached the
conclusion that while we can do most of what we need to do with simple
45 matches
Mail list logo
