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.

Comments

I'm curious

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Responsibility

[TheViciousOverWind]

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?

Research vs. production

[heironymouscoward]

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!

From the old article, it says...

[AArmadillo]

# 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.

Re:Child porn

[Library Spoff]

>>DC is self-censoring, i.e. child/gay porn sharers aer kicked away from the hubs.

funny how everyone assumes gay and kiddie porn are the same. Gay and into porn - you *must* be a kiddie fiddler. sheesh...

"child/gay"?

[kerry-buckley]

i.e. child/gay porn sharers aer kicked away from the hubs.

Why are you lumping gay porn in with child porn? Is the only acceptable porn that depicting women, or heterosexual couples?

Just curious.

What more do you guys want?

[SmirkingRevenge]

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".

Re:Child porn

[Zocalo]

On the subject of child porn's "underground" portrayal in the (mainstream) media I once read an article about an IT journalist who was always being asked by his non IT colleagues "Where's the porn?" Their intent was obviously to write another "Diss of the Internet as a hive of pedophiles" article that were and are so common. His standard response was "If it's is easy to find as you and your ilk claim, then I'm sure you can find it all by yourself, can't you."

When the journalists reporting on the subject don't have a clue, then it's hardly suprising that their articles are somewhat skewed. Skip forward a few years and now we are getting the same standards of journalistic brilliance applied to P2P and the whole copyright issue.

Then and Now

[Plasmic]

Ian's Comments on Freenet... Then and Now

Real vs. Theoretical:

Then: "Freenet is not just theoretical, it has been downloaded by over 1.2 million users since the project started, and it is used for the distribution of censored information all over the world, including countries such as China and the Middle East." -- Freenet web site

Now: "Freenet is a research project, always has been. If people find that its usable, then great, they can help us research how to make it better." -- Ian, Newsgroup posting

Use Freenet vs. Use Something Else:

Then: "Freenet is a pretty effective and scalable way to distribute large files and it is immune to "denial of service" attacks, so it is certainly useful beyond its primary goal of permitting anonymous information distribution." -- Ian, GrepLaw Interview

Now: "If you want something easy to use that works today and claims to protect your anonymity, I suggest you try Earth Station 5, its developers tell us that its just *great*!" -- Ian, Newsgroup posting

Production vs. Development:

Then: "Freenet is also actively used in other countries, including the United States, to distribute censored information such as the Church of Scientology "Operating Thetan" documents. Freenet has been download by over 2,000,000 people." -- Ian, GrepLaw Interview

Now: "I have never ever characterized Freenet as being anything other than in development. Either help, stop griping, or find an alternative." -- Ian, Newsgroup posting

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.

Re:Then and Now

[Rogerborg]

I'm getting the distinct impression that it's all getting too big for Ian, and he really doesn't know what to do next. I read his post as a plea for help, but sans the important admission that he really, really needs it.

I wonder if he's stuck in the situation where he really wants to retain control over Freenet (for the best of reasons), but has hit the limit of his technical ability.

Where should he go from here? Assign the copy rights to the FSF and trust in the basic goodness of people, I suggest.

Storm in a teacup

[Sanity]

I am disappointed that Slashdot would post this kind of thing, we have this kind of discussion on the Freenet mailing list all the time, in fact many of our debates are far more heated. Whoever submitted this story is just trying to stir up some crap, and it is a shame that Slashdot has given them a voice. It is interesting that they didn't also link to the rest of the discussion after the email they quoted where the debate was largely resolved - I guess that wouldn't have helped the "fracturing in the ranks!" hysteria.

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".