Slashdot Mirror
Fracturing P2P Networks
A reader writes: "If you run Freenet and have noticed that you practically can't access anything on the network, you are not alone; a group of Freenet users has organized a Freenet Revolt by forming a separate network running an old, proven build of Freenet, and things have been heating up on the freenet-devel mailing list with a scary declaration by project leader Ian Clarke that Freenet is a research project and has always been, which scared some list members, since Freenet has been actively promoted as a production network and has a sensitive userbase, including Chinese dissidents. Some people are already moving to similar networks like GNUnet and Entropy. " Of course, that does sound different then what has been said before.
does someone seriously believe Freenet is just a research project when it has such social ramifications?
In a couple of decades' time, when everything, such as phone, radio, television, movies, music, books, the lot, are locked up through DRM/Palladium, something like Freenet would be the anemia (sp?) of the command-and-control society companies are pushing us towards. It may well be illegal some time in the future.
If Ian Clarke claims it is anything but research, then people will start to see it in a whole new light, perhaps claiming Ian (and other developers) be held resposible for its use.
Maybe he just seeks to avoid those conflicts?
My <1000 UID is with a hot chick
Anyone find anything of interest in FreeNet? It was too slow for casual browsing, at least...
Apparently, it is easier to find all kinds of "interesting" stuff (mostly entertaining documents by crackpots) in run-of-the-mill p2p networks, such as DC. And all the feds looking for child porn distributors would do well to take a look at edonkey2000 network. DC is self-censoring, i.e. child/gay porn sharers aer kicked away from the hubs.
It's funny to see how hysterical people are about child porn, and how "underground" it is portrayed in the media. But yet relatively public networks such as edonkey has lots of the "pre-teen" material. It's not like it would take a heroic detective skills to raid some of the houses of people who are distributing it...
A standard problem with deploying systems is that as soon as there is a critical mass of users, the bulk of them want stability rather than innovation.
The solution is to have multiple parallel versions, one for the early adopters, one for the mass market, and one for the late adopters.
If this is not possible within Freenet itself (because the network exists as a single entity) then the solution is to have alternative products. It seems quite fair to have (e.g. Gnunet) providing a robust and stable product while Freenet continues to act as a research project: both needs are clear and there is no real need to compromise either of them.
Eventually the question of how to build such networks will be fully understood and the research will end and everyone will migrate to the One Network that does it best.
Until then, yay, more Freenet, and more choice!
Ceci n'est pas une signature
# What is Freenet?
Freenet is free software designed to provide a forum where information can be published and consumed without fear of censorship. It does this by providing a completely decentralized, and robust way that people can publish and read information anonymously. Freenet grew out of a paper I wrote while still a student at Edinburgh University.
Sounds like the canary has changed its tune, eh? Now freenet is a research project, not a 'forum where information can be published and consumed without fear of censorship.' Although I always respect a developer that wants to go back and fix bugs with a system before moving to another release (or I suppose in this case, after moving to another release), the email from Ian Clarke sounds downright aggorant -- you can address points about bugs without telling someone to go use another network. I don't use freenet, so it doesn't really affect me, but I definately feel sorry for those who do/did.
Ian Clarke is just saying that Freenet is imperfect, and some people are overreacting to what he said. Freenet is not about to start divulging anybody's anonyminity anytime soon. Actually the "research" is looking into continually better ways of protecting it. Freenet still has a long way to go, and creating some sort of pseudo-"stable" branch is not going to help things. Ian Clarke was talking about the bugs found in all software programs, not actual design failures. Of course, perfect security is a pipe dream, and those people who are throwing this tantrum can stop asking for it.
Why are you lumping gay porn in with child porn? Is the only acceptable porn that depicting women, or heterosexual couples?
Just curious.
I like this comment:
It is estiamted that, after digging a 100 ft well, it is possible to achieve over six kilobits of extra RAM storage at 20 kHz.
We are currently looking for distributors.
Data storage in a well!
Seriously, though, I've been thinking that something like this is the solution to the real-world problem of permanent storage. CDs die. Tapes (or their hardware) die. Harddrives die. The only way to maintain permanent storage over _long_ periods of time is to think of it like drops in an ocean: data forever moving. The net will live forever.
We need a p2p network for secure, private file storage, not sharing. Anybody know of such a project? I don't think it's freenet, nor is it kazaa. Is this a new p2p idea? Data always flowing, noone knowing what's there. Just have everyone pay N MB to store one MB of private data, then the data can be N (-1?) fold secure.
Who?
Ive been using freenet for quite a long time. And have, in the past hyped it up and distributed CDs of it and related software to people. As it stands at the moment I will not use freenet until it improves drastically. The latest builts wont retrive anything, even the common link pages. Last time i checked most site maintainers had abandened their site because the network was so sucky. Ian Clark seems to be one of the worst freenet developers. His conserns over the type of material beening distibuted seem to be one of the many reasons freenet development is not progressing as well as it should. I only hope freenet will continue and grow into something to be proud of. We all need this kind of network, if not now, in the future.
I'm sorry, but this guy isn't being paid for his project, made all of his source open, and worked his ass off on something the community uses.
He doesn't "owe" anyone anything, and we should all be thankful that (and this is the main advantage with open source) a project isn't dead just because it's creator is tired of maintaining it.
Instead of complaining about it, branch the code! Make it better! Or at least make it into whatever you want. You see, that's the beauty of open source, instead of "shit, or get off the pot" it's "code or STFU".
Real vs. Theoretical:
Use Freenet vs. Use Something Else:
Production vs. Development:
I didn't find any direct conflicts in the articles linked above, but there's certainly a shift in tone. It's also worth mentioning that they have a release called "stable", in addition to the "development" and "unstable" branches.
(Cue music)
.
Ian Clarke, Ian Clarke, riding through the land. .
"Blimey, this redistribution of free information is trickier than I thought."
Look, you take a few million rugged individualists the try to throw one blanket over them this sort of thing is bound to happen. An acquiantence of mine once complained that they couldn't get people who were Libertarians to register as party members.
Well duh!
Parties aren't part of the Constitutional structure of America. Why would a real Libertarian join one?
The very concept is a bit like the proverbial procrastinators meeting or herd of cats.
This was bound to happen. It's also bound to blow over. Maybe it'll even result in some "genetic annealing" of the net.
KFG
Linux was at version 0.x from 1991 until 1994 when version 1.0 was released. I remember people using Linux 0.x in 1994 though (and 1995, 1996), sometimes in a production capacity, although I'm sure caveats would have recommended against it. In fact, was Linux version 1.0 ready to be used in a production environment with no worries? Not really (I remember my 1.x server getting the "ping of death" and going down, among other things). Freenet was released in 1999. When it goes to version 1.x, that's when I'll expect a more production-oriented p2p network. But Ian does not feel it is ready, and I tend to agree. Linux was very complex, but it did have many other OS's to compare with, it was not totally groundbreaking and revolutionary (although it partly was). Freenet is forging a new path, thus takes more time.
It's just a project leader telling someone to help fix what's broken, wait till it's fixed, or go play somewhere else. Happens all the time, read some Linus Torvalds posts to see how he gives people hell who give him shit. Nothing new here, move on. It's not the end of Freenet.
What part of >0.<5.1 don't people understand? How can people claim that we describe Freenet as production ready when the fact that Freenet isn't is embodied in the very name of each release?!
This is not inconsistent in it being downloaded by users, nor is it inconsistent with people using it - since, as anyone familiar with Open Source development, such usage is part of any O.S development process.
Anyone that does choose to use Freenet is encouraged to understand what it does and does not protect at the moment, and those that do, do-so on this basis.
We agreed to resolve these issues by creating a more conservative stable branch of Freenet, and efforts are underway to make this happen as we speak. Bottom line: "Move along, there is nothing to see here".