Dave Baker wrote: > On Tuesday 20 March 2007 13:15:54 Sback wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to apply this project for the GSoC. I would appreciate >> your comments and suggestions! >> >> Thank you, >> >> Sback >> > > Thanks - I've included some comments below. > Thank you very much for your time :) > [cut] > >> Benefits to the Freenet Community: >> With this project it will be much easier to start a Freenet Node >> in every QEmu supported Operative System. >> > > Why? Freenet already runs in Java, and half the point of Java is that it's > platform-independent. How will it being a QEmu image make it easier than the > current installer (or any hypothetical Freenet installer)? > > I think that with a QEmu machine it should be simpler because we can "pack" everything in a single executable that will start up a system that can be take care of everything involving a good functioning of a Freenet node. I mean it would be really easier to perform auto-update for both the freenet code and the Java Virtual Machine. For the user it is just "turning on a box" that will take care of everything. And I think that is a good point for usability. What is more there will be almost no security and crash problems for the hosting machine (as in every virtualized environment), probably in my application I should stress this point more. If the node crashes there will be no problems for the hosting machine, it is just "turn it off and on again". Then it would be possible to specify even two differents subnet for the host and the guest, avoiding many security problems. What do you think? >> It will increase >> considerably the number of people trying this project and it >> will be a gain for its potential too. >> > > Again, how? > See above :) > >> Furthermore this work could be available both as a stable >> reference for tested freenet version and as a testing environment >> for developers to deploy new functionality. >> > > Potentially, but again, it's Java - we're (theoretically) abstracted away > from > the machine anyway so the platform doesn't make much difference. The > differences come from node configuration, net connection and how the node is > peered. > Maybe here I did not explained well. If you are developing something new and you want to try it. I think it would be really useful to try the changement before on a virtual machine than on your own PC. For instance Debian is looking for someone who could do something similar for their system upgrades : http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2007/SystemUpgradeTesting > >> Finally this QEmu instance could be used for studying pourposes, >> at user level too, on Freenet functionality (e.g. statistics, >> bandusage,...) >> even in a cluster of freenet nodes. >> > > Why do we need QEmu for that? We can set up an indefinate number nodes on the > same machine anyway. > > Essentially, the 'benefit' section leaves so many questions unanswered that > it > doesn't actually explain the benefit at all, so I still don't understand the > point of the project. I'm sure there's a sensible aim here, but I can't > figure out what it is from reading the proposal! > I think we should consider it from the point of view of a non-freenet developer. It could be really easier just to turn your n-virtual machines on and run classical system administration tools on it, than searching how to deploy n-nodes on the same machine. And they will have the same possibility as n-nodes connected to a virtual switch? I mean: it is like having n-computer to tests! :)
In my opinion these are a lot of interesting benefits. And I hope to have explained it a little better. > Hope this helps, > A lot! Particularlty on the part concerning the security (I left it away :( ) Thank you very much ;) > > Dave > > > [cut] Sback
