Different views on what's realistic? Will Freenet just be a US or bandwidth
rich countries project? The government in New Zealand has decided that 256/256 is the highest broadband speed that our telecom monomoply needs to make available to competitors. :-(
128/128 is the fastest connection available domestically without a monthly bandwidth cap that Freenet would blow out of the water in 5 days. There aren't any business level connections that wouldn't be prohibitively expensive. Which leaves academia (and even per department most would frown on Freenet).
Ok I appreciate we're just in a sucky part of the world. I get the impression others are too. But when I read:
[snip]
I'm amazed that the above still works... ***
and you're amazed that 256/128 works (if I'm reading it correctly) then that
leaves me out of the cold, and you're suggesting bandwidth needs to be
at least 1024/256 for you to expect Freenet to work.
Freenet works fine on 256/128, but it chews through bandwidth.
What I was thinking of doing was getting a server in a US on a fairly decent connection and running a Freenet node on that. People would be able to get secure tunnels in to the server to the FCP port (and maybe Fred - but I'd prefer FCP only). At the moment I'm looking at a ValueWeb offering - US$65/month in the config I want (some friends also want shells on the box - it'll be running UML).
The only problem I have is money. Oh, and RAM - it won't have free reign over the box. 128MB max, closer to 50MB in reality - not ideal.
If only Java worked in less RAM, or Freenet worked with less data transfer. I can only allow ~1GB/Month on my connection. Roll on NZWired (nzwired.net)
-- Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sitharus.com/ _______________________________________________ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
