-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 31 May 2006, at 04:48, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> >>> My original objection stands to FCP connection management: 99% of >>> the >>> usage of FCP connection management will be for grotesque hacks which >>> produce bogus opennets without the right topology. >> >> That demonstrates a rather condescending view of client authors. > > This demonstrates established fact. Have a look at the numerous key > exchange boards on Frost, the 2+ ubernodes, #freenet-refs, the clients > complaining about overload because they used a script to add 300 > (disconnected) peers...
Has it occurred to you that people are resorting to these because a) there is no better alternative and b) we actually advise them to use IRC *BECAUSE* we know there is currently no better alternative? Refusing to provide people with connection management support in FCP is not going to help anybody, and will just lead to more ugly kludges that hurt the network. >> Anyway, as I have said before, the point is moot because people are >> *already* implementing "grotesque hacks" using fproxy, we need to >> provide a better alternative, and the best way to do that is to >> provide proper support in FCP, which will include concrete advice >> about how to ensure the kind of clustering required for small world. > > So they can more efficiently implement grotesque hacks? No thanks. Sorry Matthew but you are 100% wrong on this issue, you seem to be exhibiting a rather disturbing contempt for our user-base. That is never a healthy attitude in any software project, particularly one like Freenet. >> *Any* attempt to implement a more user-friendly mechanism for >> establishing connections, which may in many cases be platform >> specific, will require exposure of connection management >> functionality via FCP. Options include email-based solutions, IRC >> plugins, AIM plugins, and all sorts of other things. > > Why can't we do these things ourselves? Um, because we have plenty of things to do with the core node, the whole point of FCP is to make it easier to outsource things like AIM plugins to third-parties so that we don't have to implement such things ourselves. > How exactly do we make it easier > to get connected? We make it easier to get connected by implementing support in FCP so that client authors can create tools to help users connect to their friends - I don't see why this concept is proving so difficult for you to grasp. >> Generally, when you are trying to stop your users from doing things >> where there is an entirely legitimate reason for them to do it, on >> the basis that they can't be trusted, you are on the losing side of >> the argument (and you are in bad company, this is the kind of >> attitude that gives rise to awful ideas like DRM). > > It's easy enough for them to do it anyway. What we don't want to do is > give our implicit approval to the practice by making it easier. The only thing we are giving implicit approval to by implementing support for connection management in FCP is the creation of third- party software that makes it easy for people to connect to each- other. We can offer guidelines in the spec as to how to ensure that these apps create a healthy topology. Unless it is easy for people to connect to their friends the whole Darknet concept will fail. Implementing support for third-party apps to do this is absolutely *critical* to achieving this. The fact that people are currently resorting to ugly kludges just underlines the need for proper support for connection management in FCP, coupled with guidelines as to how people can use it in a way that won't hurt the network topology. Ian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEfdX+QtgxRWSmsqwRAvSQAJ0ddAz02M0vdw9rdhs92nl/BdFdhQCeLGBt WgV7ZrFyvxHanIJDyDDpK2g= =3ixx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
