On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 02:13:02PM +0200, Guido Winkelmann wrote: > > > > It's also *far* more expensive. There is no reason to slow things down > > here, and I don't see that it makes life harder for the client author. > > Multiplexing done by TCP/IP is expensive? That's big news for me. Maybe you > should tell that the BitTorrent crowd and, oh, just about the rest of the > internet.
Connection tear-down and set-up is pretty expensive. This is why HTTP uses keepalives. This is why HTTP-NG layer 0 was a multiplexing layer. > > [...] > > > So you are punishing the users for running fproxy, because you don't. > > You are still clinging to the assumption that fproxy will stay the most > important application in Freenet for a long time to come. Personally, I am > convinced that it will be dwarved in importance by IRC-over-Freenet and/or > Messageboard-over-Freenet soon after good tools become available for that. (I > don't consider Frost to be a particularly good tool.) Well, that's your opinion. > > Note that the popularity of the WWW on the normal web is in no smll part due > to the ability to do server- and or client-side scripting, which is simply > not available in Freenet. With 0.7 there will be ways to do most things you can do on the Real Web. > > > > > End-user code such as? > > > > > > Everything that actually does something for the user with the > > > functionality provided by FCPv2. I'd classify enduser code (in this case) > > > as "anything that is or could be implemented using FCP(v2)". > > > > Ahhh, okay. So: > > - Fproxy is end-user code. > > - The config servlet is end-user code. Even though the user needs to run > > it to configure bandwidth usage in a user-friendly way. > > - Diagnostics are end-user code (you can get them from FCPv2). > > The last two don't neatly fit into the scheme core code - enduser code. > They're a special case. > > > - HTTP in general is end-user code. > > [...] > > > > > Einstein once said that the trick with Occam's Razor (~= KISS) is not > > > > to slit your own throat. Things should be as simple as possible - AND > > > > NO SIMPLER. > > > > > > Alright - so we're arguing about where the point of "too simple" is. > > > > > > Oh, and if I got this correctly, the thing from Einstein was about > > > something different. It was about educating the public about science's > > > discoveries. If you're getting too complex in this case, the audience > > > won't understand. If you're getting too simple, you're losing > > > correctness. > > > > Really? I had always assumed he meant theories... Occam surely did... > > As far as I know, it isn't even known for certain whether it really was > Einstein who said that. It doesn't matter much, though. There is wisdom in > this quote, so who cares who said it originally? > > [...] > > Guido -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- 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/tech/attachments/20051007/dc76f1f7/attachment.pgp>
