On Thursday 10 March 2011 19:06:46 Michiel de Jong wrote:
> Still, since you're already distributing the web app, i don't see so much
> added advantage in separating the app from the data (which is what unhosted
> is all about). it makes sense to put javascript into freenet extension, but
> not so
On Thursday 10 March 2011 19:06:46 Michiel de Jong wrote:
> Still, since you're already distributing the web app, i don't see so much
> added advantage in separating the app from the data (which is what unhosted
> is all about). it makes sense to put javascript into freenet extension, but
> not so
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Monday 14 February 2011 09:08:28 Michiel de Jong wrote:
> > I may remember this incorrectly, but I think when I tried out freenet,
> it's
> > a desktop application, and not a localhost http service, right?
>
> Freenet is a localhost
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Monday 14 February 2011 09:08:28 Michiel de Jong wrote:
> > I may remember this incorrectly, but I think when I tried out freenet,
> it's
> > a desktop application, and not a localhost http service, right?
>
> Freenet is a localhost
On Monday 14 February 2011 09:08:28 Michiel de Jong wrote:
> I may remember this incorrectly, but I think when I tried out freenet, it's
> a desktop application, and not a localhost http service, right?
Freenet is a localhost http-service. I already used it remotely quite often by
just tunnellin
On Monday 14 February 2011 09:08:28 Michiel de Jong wrote:
> I may remember this incorrectly, but I think when I tried out freenet, it's
> a desktop application, and not a localhost http service, right?
Freenet is a localhost http-service. I already used it remotely quite often by
just tunnelling
On Tuesday 01 Mar 2011 17:44:33 Michiel de Jong wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Sorry to take so long to reply, it's been a bit hectic for me these days.
>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Matthew Toseland amphibian.dyndns.org
> > wrote:
>
> > Okay, we've clearly gone off in different directions.
>
On Tuesday 01 Mar 2011 17:44:33 Michiel de Jong wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Sorry to take so long to reply, it's been a bit hectic for me these days.
>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Matthew Toseland > wrote:
>
> > Okay, we've clearly gone off in different directions.
> >
> not necessarily, i
Hi Matthew,
Sorry to take so long to reply, it's been a bit hectic for me these days.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Okay, we've clearly gone off in different directions.
>
>
not necessarily, i think i just didn't fully understand what you were
proposing, which made
Hi Matthew,
Sorry to take so long to reply, it's been a bit hectic for me these days.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Okay, we've clearly gone off in different directions.
>
>
not necessarily, i think i just didn't fully understand what you were
proposing, which made
On Monday 14 Feb 2011 08:08:28 Michiel de Jong wrote:
> I thought about this some more, and I think it doesn't make sense to
> distribute applications over freenet. Rather I think the JavaScript
> application should be like a viewer application, and the unhosted storage
> node could do freenet-node
On Sunday 13 Feb 2011 21:30:13 Michiel de Jong wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Matthew Toseland amphibian.dyndns.org
> > wrote:
>
> > I wonder if we could build a usable sandbox based on Unhosted principles,
> > i.e. an app can download and upload data specific to its user, and can talk
On Monday 14 Feb 2011 08:08:28 Michiel de Jong wrote:
> I thought about this some more, and I think it doesn't make sense to
> distribute applications over freenet. Rather I think the JavaScript
> application should be like a viewer application, and the unhosted storage
> node could do freenet-node
On Sunday 13 Feb 2011 21:30:13 Michiel de Jong wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Matthew Toseland > wrote:
>
> > I wonder if we could build a usable sandbox based on Unhosted principles,
> > i.e. an app can download and upload data specific to its user, and can talk
> > to other users. We
I thought about this some more, and I think it doesn't make sense to
distribute applications over freenet. Rather I think the JavaScript
application should be like a viewer application, and the unhosted storage
node could do freenet-node/server task of keeping data alive and anonymizing
requests. S
I thought about this some more, and I think it doesn't make sense to
distribute applications over freenet. Rather I think the JavaScript
application should be like a viewer application, and the unhosted storage
node could do freenet-node/server task of keeping data alive and anonymizing
requests. S
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> I wonder if we could build a usable sandbox based on Unhosted principles,
> i.e. an app can download and upload data specific to its user, and can talk
> to other users. We could even provide a confirmation mechanism per-user for
> more p
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> I wonder if we could build a usable sandbox based on Unhosted principles,
> i.e. an app can download and upload data specific to its user, and can talk
> to other users. We could even provide a confirmation mechanism per-user for
> more p
I apologise for replying before I at least had a proper look at the website!
This is in fact fascinating and there may well be things we can do together or
at least inspiration we can draw from one another.
Lets get detailed, technical, and concise, about what would be involved in
Freenet worki
I apologise for replying before I at least had a proper look at the website!
This is in fact fascinating and there may well be things we can do together or
at least inspiration we can draw from one another.
Lets get detailed, technical, and concise, about what would be involved in
Freenet worki
20 matches
Mail list logo
