The reason we have so many choices is because....the users and developers want choices.
But the userbase has not moved much beyond the sysadmin and system developer circles. These developers are mostly doing wheelies trying to impress their peers, not their potential novice end-users. They code for themselves and take great care with, for instance, APIs used among their peers--- but UI's are handled very sloppily and they squirm out of maintaining UI feature stability for the user by calling for "freedom".
Funny that... When you get below a certain level (say, to the kernel + GNU) then preventing fragmentation and maintaining consistency suddenly becomes a constant driving force and the freedom rhetoric becomes muted.
Frankly, I've had it. Linux is not anything like a platform in the personal computing sense, and the community isn't interested in converging on one. Application developers (esp. ISVs) hardly ever enter the discussion and making a FOSS platform that is attractive to ISVs is not anywhere near a top priority.
But its the APPS that sell the system and this 'Linux' thing (community, phenomenon, whatever) is hard as heck for independant app developers to target and then provide support.
After all these years we've seen app developers come to Apple in droves but the same hasn't happened for this amorphous thing called 'Linux'. Well the uber-choice amorphous thing doesn't inspire app developers, it frightens them and clearly they've had the sense to mostly stay away. App developers are more concerned with birthing their big idea(s) which usually involve a lot of nuanced human factors than they are with cool OS features you can enable if-only-you-static-link-this-forked-library-and-enable-this-compiler-flag-only-on-certain-distros-and-not-others.
Even a non-OS, Firefox, is a more popular platform for development. It advocates say "Try Firefox!" not "Try-one-of-those-gecko-browsers!" With the latter 'Linux-like' approach, web traffic today would still be 95% to Internet Explorer clients.
EXT4 is the newcomer and KDE has worked fine not just with EXT3, but with all the other filesystems like XFS, JFS, Reiserfs and even Reiser4.
Its clear that EXT4 was NOT testing with crucial existing system software before release. And now that the audio and graphics architectures are a screwed up mess due to disregard for PC users and their most critical software and use cases, we can thank Linus & co for poisoning even the filesystem itself, which will get foisted on unknowing users who won't even know enough to change the default fs or to make a choice between data integrity and performance.
Linux is so much better, so much more powerful, easier to use, secure, and stable than windows it's a shame so many people are turned off Linux because their work requires exactly this or that application.
Then we need to ask why developers who write applications (not OS-level stuff and system tools) that are trying to target their usually well-defined audiences (user base) don't also target Linux as a platform.
Oooops! Could it be that "Linux platform" has no meaning in the context of personal computing?? Everything above the GNU toolchain level is feature-unstable and therefore cannot be counted on even existing when an app is being installed.
Linux isn't even a platform for the web... though LAMP is. It is tempting to try and put together such an acronym-platform for personal computing, but the number of letters required would be overwhelming because unlike LAMP the target audience are technically unsophisticated and need a great many components, interface elements and defaults to be Just-So whenever they sit down at a machine.
But so far all the FOSS community has been able to achieve is selling some managed desktops (thin client, non-PCs in particular) to large institutions, and confuse everyone else by talking up "Linux". They could have done a similar mis-deed if, for instance, all FOSS fans could talk about are the various cool browsers you can use if you "switch to Gecko".
A fresh install detected my NIC, and works on the automatic settings. But my network is setup for Static IP. When I go into the system settings to change the settings for eth0, it says noting is there!! It just shows an empty list of NICs.
This is pretty basic so I may switch over to Ubuntu to get things working properly.
I love it too, though sometimes I feel like the ads shouldn't be totally blocked (I won't say it's "conscience" because what many advertisers do is unconscionable).
I started deploying it because all the Flash ads were bringing older computers to their knees, making them unusable on otherwise manageable web pages.
If usability is the main concern for some users, maybe we should have the option of deciding how many ads are allowed per page... and let ABP randomly choose which ones to show.
Like the black markets in the former Eastern Block, people's willingness to 'copy anyway' serves to de-legitimize the justifications (obscene copyright terms) for police state behavior. It is one of the ways that people stand up to a political or corporate class hat has developed a lust for dominance and punishment.
The main reason I know your argument is weak is because it doesn't hold up to the experience of the war on drugs: There is simply no end to how small an incursion the present establishment will try to prosecute people for (captains of industry, heads of state and their most vociferous line-towers excepted, of course).
The sentiment "They won't have a reason to spy/criminalize if you don't give them one" also bears a mirror-like resemblance to "People with nothing to hide have nothing to fear".
Quite sincerely, I am suggesting that you re-examine your stance or resign from the ORG.
The 'users' of a web filter are sysadmins. These expert 'users' are the ones who interface with the server and router software that runs a network.
In this discussion, we are talking about true end-users and the desire of sysadmin types to make them use a nebulous classification of software ('Linux') that only the expert can competently sort through to make a desktop work.
The management types instinctively know that what the author is trying to sell them isn't something most end-users can grasp. And that just doesn't float in an environment that normally centers around person computers and their distinct operating systems. Management might have to use this 'Linux' thing themselves, despite never really registering its Look and Feel. And they probably never will because it doesn't have one per se.
The only sure way to promote Linux-based desktops in a large corporate environment is to pitch a shift toward managed thin clients, and don't mention 'Linux' until much later. IT management understands that thin clients are a different paradigm than PCs, with the former being centrally managed by one or two sysadmins; they may even understand that Unix/Linux does thin clients well; they also won't let you anywhere near their middle- and upper-management PCs (glorified terminals are for peons).
Really? I was just responding to a fellow who insists that it means 'all that GNU stuff' including Gnome (although its news to me that Gnome is a GNU project).
Technically the only similarities between Win7 and XP are a similar kernel, and there are practically no similarities between Mac OS9 and OSX. The only thing that glues them together is the "Windows" and "Mac" brands.
So what?? OS9 is from 1999 and XP is from 2003. If the face of "Mac" and "Windows" changed every 6 months or for every new copy they would be marketing failures too.
Besides, then you've got things like "Linux Compatible" hardware. Do you want to list every single compatible distro on the box of a new bit of kit in PC World?
Supposedly the LSB would be good for that (and for generally establishing a platform too). But they can't be bothered with a compatibility and trademarking licensing program so that hardware vendors can add an "LSB compatible" logo to their box. Of course, they need a better name than "LSB" which is a techie's buzzword not a marketable brand name.
Google has a marketable Linux-based platform called ANDROID. It's cute, memorable and has an honest-to-God SDK and standard GUI. IOW, it brings users and app developers together on a predictable, readily-identifiable platform.
Nope. The term "Linux" has come to encompass the common set of GNU and other userland tools
It refers to either the Linux kernel alone, or the kernel + GNU toolchain. Neither Gnome nor KDE is a GNU (FSF) project.
No one outside the tech community knows what you are talking about, which is understandable since you have made it abundantly clear that basic terms mean whatever you want whenever you choose to change the meaning. Guess who lost this terminology debate? The entire FOSS community!
As I alluded to earlier, Mozilla has kept their product identity crystal clear and met with success because of that clarity. They even threatened projects like Debian who would insert their own code and still distribute the browser as Mozilla Firefox. Thank God!
Ubuntu is an OS, but not a platform. Canonical does not make commitments as to which APIs are supported in a default installation. They don't even have their LSB package installed by default.
Standardization is there, too; again, it's just that the standards aren't called "Ubuntu", but rather POSIX, LSB, or freedesktop.org, for instance, depending on what aspect of standardization you're interested in.
Why should users have to discern between all these buzzwords that describe what's inside a distro like Ubuntu? You see? Not a platform!
And who gives a damn about all that supposed "GNU" software that "typically" (but not definitely) gets distributed with a Linux-based OS? Typically??? F-off!
Standardize the interfaces to the end users and app developers, or continue to languish in obscurity. If you aren't interested in bringing those two groups of people together in a predictable OS environment (a platform) then stop bothering them about "Linux" you nutbag.
Neither. Whoever corrected you is wrong and/or wasting everyone's time. It's "Linux", except to the dedicated GNU fanboi.
Hardly a dedicated fanboi here.
So tell me, how does "Linux" look and feel to an end user, eh?? Both "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" are entirely inappropriate for marketing to the general public, unless you think they're concerned about internal kernel and toolchain features.
Those two terms describe a set of qualities and features that technicians and coders know and care about.
Then the FOSS people come along and say you should get a car based solely on the brand of transmission (kernel) inside.
Not brilliant. Its been like watching a whole subculture go through a decade-long neurosis, trying to push something to users that they mostly cannot see or touch.
Imagine if Apple constantly went on and on about OpenDarwin / XNU in their mass-market advertising. Or if Mozilla waged a "Get Gecko" campaign to end-users... They would be in the 1-2% penetration bracket nowadays with a nonsensical message like that.
Then there is the 'Get Ubuntu' crowd, which I admire (and I followed their advice). BUT Ubuntu is not a PC platform: It doesn't have a set UI to make life manageable for users and tech support alike, nor an SDK for app developers, nor a program for certifying hardware for the OS, nor a way to independently distribute application packages that will still work 6 months (nevermind 2-6 years) down the road.
In fact, Firefox looks more like a PC platform in some important areas than any Linux distro.
The 'Web is a mass of hypertext page servers that operate ON TOP of the Internet. Its called the World Wide Web because the pages have links that refer to other sites... a web of links.
DNS just translates names like "slashdot.org" into IP addresses a little bit like a phone directory.
WTF? I am supposed to use Theora if I want an unencumbered codec??
At least VLC supports it directly.
Incidentally, VLC is not so hot on OS X these days. Instead of using FFmpeg for everything it can, it defers to Quicktime and its plugins for anything it can. Which means that most of the time you will not get an alternative method of decoding with the latest VLC versions; I can play many more files with earlier versions.
The argument that "We don't host the files so we are not at fault" is extremely weak.
No Poindexter, it isn't. What's weak is your attitude toward the issue, which is (as I see it) that a large outfit immersed in money and corporate culture (Google) can have some links to illegal stuff and be OK, while a fringe outfit like TPB are nasty because they, too, link to everything that's out there.
There is only one way to fully check a CA-signed cert and having EV data doesn't change that. The cert gets validated whether or not it has EV data; The difference is that the EV-marked certs state that the CA went a bit further to verify the cert holder's real identity.
The browser doesn't do any extra checking for EV. Its simply a signal from the CA to the user, a signal that Apple blocks unless the user makes an effort to click on the lock and read through the cert (not likely).
Like I said, EV isn't really important if the user pays attention to the domain spelling and lock icon at the same time. Too bad Safari doesn't help users there, either.
My bank has an EV cert which shows up in Firefox 3 as a green address bar. The same https address in Safari 3.2.1 (using default settings on OS X 10.5.6 on my G4 machine) shows nothing to distinguish the cert.
The EV stuff isn't even that important compared to the mistakes of visually separating the lock from the address/domain, and of not singling out the domain from the rest of the URL.
...but up through Safari version 3 Apple has "stepped in it" when it comes to the browser UI and SSL security. It stinks.
There is no highlighting of the domain name or identity of the https website, there are no extended validation cues, and the lock icon is shown in the corner of the window titlebar far away from the website address.
Just as bad is having no status bar as the default, so people are less likely to notice that a URL-looking link doesn't go to the same place as shown on the page. This also trains users not to expect the status bar, which is a vital source of security context on other browsers.
So I hope that Safari 4 is better, but given Apple's record in this area I won't be holding my breath.
Um, "In The West" (the United States) over 1% of the adult population is currently behind bars and 17% of all adults have been put through the penal system. Minors are being sentenced as child pornographers for sending nude cameraphone shots of themselves to their girl/boyfriends.
I think your view of the West may be Hollywood-tinted and overly optimistic. The war on drugs (a kind of civil war) is just starting to abate; legislators and police-state apparatchiks are looking for the next new frontier to exercise their lust for punishment.
Actually, Java isn't slow at all compared to other high level languages. It is very fast.
Sometimes I wonder why you C trolls don't just switch to assembler.... Or why you're so quiet whenever (rather slow) PHP is discussed... or.NET for that matter.
Granted, Java was too much overhead on 1998 PCs (and those painful memories of slowness).. but its time to move on newer perspectives dear.
Using p2p over TOR isn't going to get you very far.
I think you read too much into that. I mentioned TOR only in the sense anonymizing traffic.
It would be nice if more users ran relays and exit nodes. And really the latter is what we need... it would be nice if at least in the west people could find some more legal reassurance to running an exit node.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason we have so many choices is because....the users and developers want choices.
But the userbase has not moved much beyond the sysadmin and system developer circles. These developers are mostly doing wheelies trying to impress their peers, not their potential novice end-users. They code for themselves and take great care with, for instance, APIs used among their peers--- but UI's are handled very sloppily and they squirm out of maintaining UI feature stability for the user by calling for "freedom".
Funny that... When you get below a certain level (say, to the kernel + GNU) then preventing fragmentation and maintaining consistency suddenly becomes a constant driving force and the freedom rhetoric becomes muted.
Frankly, I've had it. Linux is not anything like a platform in the personal computing sense, and the community isn't interested in converging on one. Application developers (esp. ISVs) hardly ever enter the discussion and making a FOSS platform that is attractive to ISVs is not anywhere near a top priority.
But its the APPS that sell the system and this 'Linux' thing (community, phenomenon, whatever) is hard as heck for independant app developers to target and then provide support.
After all these years we've seen app developers come to Apple in droves but the same hasn't happened for this amorphous thing called 'Linux'. Well the uber-choice amorphous thing doesn't inspire app developers, it frightens them and clearly they've had the sense to mostly stay away. App developers are more concerned with birthing their big idea(s) which usually involve a lot of nuanced human factors than they are with cool OS features you can enable if-only-you-static-link-this-forked-library-and-enable-this-compiler-flag-only-on-certain-distros-and-not-others.
Even a non-OS, Firefox, is a more popular platform for development. It advocates say "Try Firefox!" not "Try-one-of-those-gecko-browsers!" With the latter 'Linux-like' approach, web traffic today would still be 95% to Internet Explorer clients.
EXT4 is the newcomer and KDE has worked fine not just with EXT3, but with all the other filesystems like XFS, JFS, Reiserfs and even Reiser4.
Its clear that EXT4 was NOT testing with crucial existing system software before release. And now that the audio and graphics architectures are a screwed up mess due to disregard for PC users and their most critical software and use cases, we can thank Linus & co for poisoning even the filesystem itself, which will get foisted on unknowing users who won't even know enough to change the default fs or to make a choice between data integrity and performance.
Grrreeeaaaattt job!!!
Walled Garden only worse.
Linux is so much better, so much more powerful, easier to use, secure, and stable than windows it's a shame so many people are turned off Linux because their work requires exactly this or that application.
Then we need to ask why developers who write applications (not OS-level stuff and system tools) that are trying to target their usually well-defined audiences (user base) don't also target Linux as a platform.
Oooops! Could it be that "Linux platform" has no meaning in the context of personal computing?? Everything above the GNU toolchain level is feature-unstable and therefore cannot be counted on even existing when an app is being installed.
Linux isn't even a platform for the web... though LAMP is. It is tempting to try and put together such an acronym-platform for personal computing, but the number of letters required would be overwhelming because unlike LAMP the target audience are technically unsophisticated and need a great many components, interface elements and defaults to be Just-So whenever they sit down at a machine.
But so far all the FOSS community has been able to achieve is selling some managed desktops (thin client, non-PCs in particular) to large institutions, and confuse everyone else by talking up "Linux". They could have done a similar mis-deed if, for instance, all FOSS fans could talk about are the various cool browsers you can use if you "switch to Gecko".
A fresh install detected my NIC, and works on the automatic settings. But my network is setup for Static IP. When I go into the system settings to change the settings for eth0, it says noting is there!! It just shows an empty list of NICs.
This is pretty basic so I may switch over to Ubuntu to get things working properly.
I love it too, though sometimes I feel like the ads shouldn't be totally blocked (I won't say it's "conscience" because what many advertisers do is unconscionable).
I started deploying it because all the Flash ads were bringing older computers to their knees, making them unusable on otherwise manageable web pages.
If usability is the main concern for some users, maybe we should have the option of deciding how many ads are allowed per page... and let ABP randomly choose which ones to show.
I have to disagree with you for once.
Like the black markets in the former Eastern Block, people's willingness to 'copy anyway' serves to de-legitimize the justifications (obscene copyright terms) for police state behavior. It is one of the ways that people stand up to a political or corporate class hat has developed a lust for dominance and punishment.
The main reason I know your argument is weak is because it doesn't hold up to the experience of the war on drugs: There is simply no end to how small an incursion the present establishment will try to prosecute people for (captains of industry, heads of state and their most vociferous line-towers excepted, of course).
The sentiment "They won't have a reason to spy/criminalize if you don't give them one" also bears a mirror-like resemblance to "People with nothing to hide have nothing to fear".
Quite sincerely, I am suggesting that you re-examine your stance or resign from the ORG.
The 'users' of a web filter are sysadmins. These expert 'users' are the ones who interface with the server and router software that runs a network.
In this discussion, we are talking about true end-users and the desire of sysadmin types to make them use a nebulous classification of software ('Linux') that only the expert can competently sort through to make a desktop work.
The management types instinctively know that what the author is trying to sell them isn't something most end-users can grasp. And that just doesn't float in an environment that normally centers around person computers and their distinct operating systems. Management might have to use this 'Linux' thing themselves, despite never really registering its Look and Feel. And they probably never will because it doesn't have one per se.
The only sure way to promote Linux-based desktops in a large corporate environment is to pitch a shift toward managed thin clients, and don't mention 'Linux' until much later. IT management understands that thin clients are a different paradigm than PCs, with the former being centrally managed by one or two sysadmins; they may even understand that Unix/Linux does thin clients well; they also won't let you anywhere near their middle- and upper-management PCs (glorified terminals are for peons).
Captalism IS Evolution. Some jumps cannot be made. Large jumps have lower probability of success. Species go extinct... deal with it.
That makes a great Social Darwinism quote!
"Linux" is important because it's a brand.
Really? I was just responding to a fellow who insists that it means 'all that GNU stuff' including Gnome (although its news to me that Gnome is a GNU project).
Technically the only similarities between Win7 and XP are a similar kernel, and there are practically no similarities between Mac OS9 and OSX. The only thing that glues them together is the "Windows" and "Mac" brands.
So what?? OS9 is from 1999 and XP is from 2003. If the face of "Mac" and "Windows" changed every 6 months or for every new copy they would be marketing failures too.
Besides, then you've got things like "Linux Compatible" hardware. Do you want to list every single compatible distro on the box of a new bit of kit in PC World?
Supposedly the LSB would be good for that (and for generally establishing a platform too). But they can't be bothered with a compatibility and trademarking licensing program so that hardware vendors can add an "LSB compatible" logo to their box. Of course, they need a better name than "LSB" which is a techie's buzzword not a marketable brand name.
Google has a marketable Linux-based platform called ANDROID. It's cute, memorable and has an honest-to-God SDK and standard GUI. IOW, it brings users and app developers together on a predictable, readily-identifiable platform.
Nope. The term "Linux" has come to encompass the common set of GNU and other userland tools
It refers to either the Linux kernel alone, or the kernel + GNU toolchain. Neither Gnome nor KDE is a GNU (FSF) project.
No one outside the tech community knows what you are talking about, which is understandable since you have made it abundantly clear that basic terms mean whatever you want whenever you choose to change the meaning. Guess who lost this terminology debate? The entire FOSS community!
As I alluded to earlier, Mozilla has kept their product identity crystal clear and met with success because of that clarity. They even threatened projects like Debian who would insert their own code and still distribute the browser as Mozilla Firefox. Thank God!
Ubuntu is an OS, but not a platform. Canonical does not make commitments as to which APIs are supported in a default installation. They don't even have their LSB package installed by default.
Standardization is there, too; again, it's just that the standards aren't called "Ubuntu", but rather POSIX, LSB, or freedesktop.org, for instance, depending on what aspect of standardization you're interested in.
Why should users have to discern between all these buzzwords that describe what's inside a distro like Ubuntu? You see? Not a platform!
And who gives a damn about all that supposed "GNU" software that "typically" (but not definitely) gets distributed with a Linux-based OS? Typically??? F-off!
Standardize the interfaces to the end users and app developers, or continue to languish in obscurity. If you aren't interested in bringing those two groups of people together in a predictable OS environment (a platform) then stop bothering them about "Linux" you nutbag.
Neither. Whoever corrected you is wrong and/or wasting everyone's time. It's "Linux", except to the dedicated GNU fanboi.
Hardly a dedicated fanboi here.
So tell me, how does "Linux" look and feel to an end user, eh?? Both "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" are entirely inappropriate for marketing to the general public, unless you think they're concerned about internal kernel and toolchain features.
Those two terms describe a set of qualities and features that technicians and coders know and care about.
Then the FOSS people come along and say you should get a car based solely on the brand of transmission (kernel) inside.
Not brilliant. Its been like watching a whole subculture go through a decade-long neurosis, trying to push something to users that they mostly cannot see or touch.
Imagine if Apple constantly went on and on about OpenDarwin / XNU in their mass-market advertising. Or if Mozilla waged a "Get Gecko" campaign to end-users... They would be in the 1-2% penetration bracket nowadays with a nonsensical message like that.
Then there is the 'Get Ubuntu' crowd, which I admire (and I followed their advice). BUT Ubuntu is not a PC platform: It doesn't have a set UI to make life manageable for users and tech support alike, nor an SDK for app developers, nor a program for certifying hardware for the OS, nor a way to independently distribute application packages that will still work 6 months (nevermind 2-6 years) down the road.
In fact, Firefox looks more like a PC platform in some important areas than any Linux distro.
The 'Web is a mass of hypertext page servers that operate ON TOP of the Internet. Its called the World Wide Web because the pages have links that refer to other sites... a web of links.
DNS just translates names like "slashdot.org" into IP addresses a little bit like a phone directory.
WTF? I am supposed to use Theora if I want an unencumbered codec??
At least VLC supports it directly.
Incidentally, VLC is not so hot on OS X these days. Instead of using FFmpeg for everything it can, it defers to Quicktime and its plugins for anything it can. Which means that most of the time you will not get an alternative method of decoding with the latest VLC versions; I can play many more files with earlier versions.
cssh is great for a handful of computers, but for the 40,000 boxen, try cfengine
The argument that "We don't host the files so we are not at fault" is extremely weak.
No Poindexter, it isn't. What's weak is your attitude toward the issue, which is (as I see it) that a large outfit immersed in money and corporate culture (Google) can have some links to illegal stuff and be OK, while a fringe outfit like TPB are nasty because they, too, link to everything that's out there.
There is only one way to fully check a CA-signed cert and having EV data doesn't change that. The cert gets validated whether or not it has EV data; The difference is that the EV-marked certs state that the CA went a bit further to verify the cert holder's real identity.
The browser doesn't do any extra checking for EV. Its simply a signal from the CA to the user, a signal that Apple blocks unless the user makes an effort to click on the lock and read through the cert (not likely).
Like I said, EV isn't really important if the user pays attention to the domain spelling and lock icon at the same time. Too bad Safari doesn't help users there, either.
My bank has an EV cert which shows up in Firefox 3 as a green address bar. The same https address in Safari 3.2.1 (using default settings on OS X 10.5.6 on my G4 machine) shows nothing to distinguish the cert.
The EV stuff isn't even that important compared to the mistakes of visually separating the lock from the address/domain, and of not singling out the domain from the rest of the URL.
Favicons don't show up in the status bar, which is where Firefox 3 shows the lock right next to the domain name.
...but up through Safari version 3 Apple has "stepped in it" when it comes to the browser UI and SSL security. It stinks.
There is no highlighting of the domain name or identity of the https website, there are no extended validation cues, and the lock icon is shown in the corner of the window titlebar far away from the website address.
Just as bad is having no status bar as the default, so people are less likely to notice that a URL-looking link doesn't go to the same place as shown on the page. This also trains users not to expect the status bar, which is a vital source of security context on other browsers.
So I hope that Safari 4 is better, but given Apple's record in this area I won't be holding my breath.
Because the CLI ought to be a DRM-friendly environment!
Then again even Apple is busy removing DRM from iTMS, so perhaps the BSD folk are just wasting their time.
There was absolutely nothing redundant about that post, mod-trolls. :)
Um, "In The West" (the United States) over 1% of the adult population is currently behind bars and 17% of all adults have been put through the penal system. Minors are being sentenced as child pornographers for sending nude cameraphone shots of themselves to their girl/boyfriends.
I think your view of the West may be Hollywood-tinted and overly optimistic. The war on drugs (a kind of civil war) is just starting to abate; legislators and police-state apparatchiks are looking for the next new frontier to exercise their lust for punishment.
Actually, Java isn't slow at all compared to other high level languages. It is very fast.
Sometimes I wonder why you C trolls don't just switch to assembler. ... Or why you're so quiet whenever (rather slow) PHP is discussed ... or .NET for that matter.
Granted, Java was too much overhead on 1998 PCs (and those painful memories of slowness).. but its time to move on newer perspectives dear.
Using p2p over TOR isn't going to get you very far.
I think you read too much into that. I mentioned TOR only in the sense anonymizing traffic.
It would be nice if more users ran relays and exit nodes. And really the latter is what we need... it would be nice if at least in the west people could find some more legal reassurance to running an exit node.