Isn't this section called "Your Rights Online"? This was interesting, but somewhat off-topic (since the first piece of advice/. gives when submitting is "Please try to keep posts on topic").
I never truely believed that it was possible to make money from Open Source software - something about the idea just didn't make sense, but that was never the point. Open Source is great for users, but that doesn't automatically make it a good thing for the creators of the software. Redhat is now learning that.
Oh, so what - prey tell - is your definition of Peer to Peer?
And more to the point, if your definition rules out one of the top three peer to peer systems, that would seem to suggest to me that you need a better definition!
--
True P2P Can't Scale? Take a look at Freenet
on
Gnutella's Challenge
·
· Score: 3
Take a look at these simulations of Freenet's reliability and performance as the network size increases. You will notice that once the network stabalizes the network's size has little bearing on the time required to retrieve a piece of data. Other experiments (not yet published) have demonstrated that Freenet appears to scale logarithmically (similar to a binary search-tree), which, if accurate, means that the system could probably deal with a network of millions of nodes without any significant performance drop.
It is not my intention to compete with MN - I think that it is a good solution to the tragedy of the commons issue, but I still assert that the aims of the projects are different. With Freenet we feel that people's ability to participate in the network should be proportional to their personal wealth, which is the case with MojoNation when you really get down to it. This is not a criticism, it is just a difference in our goals.
If you think that there is no more to Freenet than its caching effect then you really need to do more research before demonstrating just how little you know.
We have created some software called "FProxy" which does something similar - which is to allow you to type URLs like http://localhost:8080/thisisafreenetkey and the web browser will (after a short delay) return the data for that key. With this it is possible to create hyperlinked websites on Freenet.
Freenet's primary goal is to provide people with free speech - Mojonation doesn't. Freenet is also supposed to be globally scalable (ie. they whole system acts as one giant network). Mojonation relies on servers - sure you can have more than one, but there is more than one Napster server too - it is still a centralized architecture. Freenet is designed to rely on no person computer or organisation. Mojonation relies completely on a "bank" to sign Mojodollars - and were this bank to be corrupted it could kill Mojonation by flooding the system with newly forged currency.
Firstly, I told the journalist that it was a joke and then checked it to prove it to him. If my credit card number was publicly available then it wouldn't take Freenet to distribute it widely - it could be posted on Usenet, any number of mailing lists, or even here on Slashdot, and I would have no legal recourse. If you want to keep a secret, please do, but don't rely on the law to enforce your secrecy if you are careless.
The point is not to replace the WWW - but to provide an alternative to distributing static content which is free from censorship, the slashdot effect, and inefficient network infrastructures. None of the Freenet team seriously think that Freenet will replace the WWW completely (if you disagree - please provide evidence).
Clarke never claimed that the current Freenet could replace all aspects of the WWW, merely that it could be a better way to distribute static content efficiently and without fear of censorship. There are future possibilities for certain systems such as web-logs to be implemented on Freenet, but it is unlikely that it could ever replace everything the WWW can do.
Of course we address this issue - we never stop discussing it. Freenet is not intended to be a permenant archive of information (and neither is the WWW), in fact is can't be a permenant archive of information.
I have never claimed that the current incarnation of Freenet could replace the WWW, merely that it could, as you suggest, be used for static content (which is probably most of the content on the WWW anyway).
- Ian Clarke
--
another story - another slashdotted site
on
Keyless Keyboard
·
· Score: 4
...and so I continue my advocasy of mirroring websites in Freenet prior to linking to them on/. (and before you ask - yes I have read the FAQ). What do you think someone would mind more? Their website being mirrored in Freenet (with all links to banner ads etc retained), or to have a well-meaning DOS attack from SlashDot bringing down their website for all of their other users?
My question is not whether it is right for slashdot to mirror websites, but whether it is right for them no to!
So - the site is slashdotted already - this is why I think Slashdot should mirror websites in Freenet. I understand that there is a problem relating to banner ads - however if the mirroring is done correctly the links to banner-ads can be retained (there is already a utility for mirroring websites for Freenet). I also understand that/. is concerned about the delay imposed by seeking permission to do this - however they could suck the website - publish it on/., while simultaenously seeking permission. When permission is granted the mirror can be made available.
Slashdot Mirror
--
--
--
And more to the point, if your definition rules out one of the top three peer to peer systems, that would seem to suggest to me that you need a better definition!
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
- Ian Clarke
--
My question is not whether it is right for slashdot to mirror websites, but whether it is right for them no to!
--
--
--
--
--
He responded "well, yes and no...".
--
--
--