* Anthony Ryan <mindspore at gmail.com> [2006-07-11 20:48:58]: > I think a big issue right now is that it is in development. A lot of people > just want to see how well it works, what kind of content there is, etc.. > Once it is to a stable point then those with the need for darknets will > begin to construct their own. But, right now.. people are just curious and > want it to work "out-of-the-box". >
A DHT isn't the model fitting the most that kind of usage. It's not happy with churn and can't work "out-of-the-box". > I believe, as soon as it is feasible, the opennet should be deployed. I don't > That > will curb the apetite of those who just want to try it out, see what it is, > see what's there, etc.. Those users are harming the network. > That will be the way to garner more users, and more > interest in the project right now. Then as the darknet develops, those who > wish to use it will do so of their own volition. > > Right now, anyone who tries to check out freenet is thrown into a cumbersome > under-construction network. And most of them don't even really know what > darknet, opennet, etc.. mean. As I said, they just want to check it out. > > And above all of that, opennet is what freenet users are used to. Bittorent/emule is what users are used to. > Why > should we wait for the functionality we have grown accustomed to in .5, > while we wait on functionality that some of us don't even need or want? > It's not a matter of functionnalities, we are talking about "core tasks" neither "changing the caching policy" or "working on load-balancing" can be considered as "functionnalities". > Anywho, that's my 2 cents from a ideological standpoint. I understand the > technical aspects that need to be worked out, but maybe making the opennet > the main, if not, sole focus until it is completed would be better for the > network.
