Absolutely agreed. The problem is, geeks have gotten tired of Freenet not working.
When it is recommended to run the service for several *days* (to fill your local cache through routed information), Freenet doesn't work. I think a broadband user should get ~= dialup speeds using a freenet-like network. After a brief time of running the service(less than an hour. THe network should be able to discover/learn my presence completely in a resaonable time) and route information to me effectively.
Freesites often do not work. They often take minutes to work, even after letting the service run for hours on end.
I am a *huge* supporter of the idea of Freenet. But it just doesn't work. It takes WAY too long to completely discover/join the network, it takes to long to retrieve information FROM the network, and it just doesn't function in a usable way.
I don't know if this is coding bugs that just cause inefficiencies. Broken routing system. Not enough nodes. I don't know. Stories of freenet nodes pounding IP addresses requesting data after a freenet client has been turned off for several days, for instance, is rediculous.
What is it that has caused so much development trouble with Freent? Why is it seem to be constantly broken and overly slow?
1. It took WAY too long to open a log file, reasonable complaint. 2. You haven't seen a justified example of why a high(er/est?) end (g5 powermac, given the 3k figure) is worth the money.
Well, I will tell you why I find my $1480 laptop well worth the money. (12in 1ghz powerbook + wifi card, 512 ram added after purchase)
1. It works. I find Apple's computers to be much more straightforward and manageable. Settings are logical, and consitent across the system. Things work as they say and there is very little 'ok, that didn't go as planned, let me fiddle around with it'
Note: I am a knowledge(power user/well above average) tech at a school district. Been working on PCs for several years. I don't know everything, but I am pretty damn capable to troubleshoot the vast majority of windows fuck ups.
2. It is stable. It just hasn't really died on me. Application works great, system is robust. XP is near/at this level in most respects(see next point), but I just like the system that keeps working, and this does.
3. Safe. First, I like being able to handle 'sensitive(windows viruses is an extreme case, but more often damagin batch files, poorly written software or adware ridden crap and the like) on my mac without worrying about double-clicking it or having to zip it up. I can read the code from crap that would thrash my windows box, and so I am immune to such things... This gives me a lot of freedom.
4. Secure. It just is more secure than windows. No activex crap, only ssh(!) is turned on by default. It is more secure in design. no root user, only su/sudo decent firewall builtin, with many really good free ones(better than zonealarm and the like, imo) available for added features. Mac OS X lets you do a lot of things like require a password to change anything 'important', similar to Linux, lets you encrypt your home folder, lock down(require passwords) on system preferences. Doesn't open shit automatically.
5. Unix. I can compile/install/use tons of linux and freebsd apps. No hassle, clean setup and go. From common stuff like lynx, to more exotic stuff like ettercap or ethereal. And with Apple's x11 server(it isn't perfect, but fulyl functional), I can run linux-based gui programs as well. This opens up every major market of software (classic mac, mac os x, unix command line, X11/Unix gui, Java, Windows 95->xp with VPC). Windows can't do that. Linux can't do that.
To sum up. The system is more consistent and guess-able (preferences are 99.99% always CMD+, in any native app), etc. It is more secure, free from adware/crap software that auto-installs, and immune to windows viruses. It lets me run linux/x11 and Java apps really well, and really fast(Java is very well integrated, linux/x11 is native speeds).
It gives me more power, with less hassle, in a cleaner, more attractive package. You are DAMN RIGHT it was worth every penny.
Don't have a link. But, and I may be wrong, but I thought this was a stipulation associated with anti-slavery and worker's rights. Making it illegal to work someone for free (slave/indentured servant) to get rid of sweat shops and the like.
Seems like that was the motivation for that 'clause' somewhere.
The new file formats (specifically the one Quicktime 7 will be using, h.264) gives significantly better quality video over the same bandwidth, and it scales from small res cell phones to high-definition TVs. Should solve a lot of problems, if it lives up to the hype.
When can such monitoring capabilities be added to things like Linux, Mac OS X (Server) or FreeBSD? Granted, some hardware is required for part of these redundant services, but not all.
Your post doesn't completely make sense, but for what its worth, Apple isn't 'hiding' anything with their software.
Turning on WEP means that you are both encrypting the traffic, and requiring authentication(WEP Key ~= Network Password). Your 'guests' all need to know this key and manually enter it on their computers to be able to use your network.
The parallels of afgan/iraq to US vs. Britian to US is staggering at times.
The US used terrorist/guerilla warfare at times(and why not?) to defeat the world power at the time, thought to be unbeatable. The same is happening in the mid-east, to an extent, of course.
You get what you pay for. Why save 300 bucks when your system will likely last 30% shorter than the higher-quality system? Why saved a hundred bucks when your productivity isn't as high or when the system is just not fast enough?
So why isn't Ubuntu, Mandrake or Redhat(they left this potential market to Fedora, but still), throwing themselves to get pre-bundled with crap-level systems? Lindows/Linspire is trying. Hopefully, it benefits Linux as a whole, but having a bastardized half-n-half system may be worse than a truer-blood Linux system.
To a true newb. Running Windows is somewhat familiar... Buttons and colors and windows. When moving to a new system, there is an important step. The system has to be different enough that it cannot be confused with the original, it has to be different enough so that the user EXPECTS things to be different, and thus, they won't get upset when they aren't like they were("well, this LOOKS like windows XP, so Why can't I run game X, or find a setting in Y?!"). There needs to be a clear "ok, this ISN'T Windows, and so things will be different" mindset, otherwise we are setting ourselves up for failure.
So they are playing devil's advocate... Not like/. doesn't paint Microsoft in the same light regularly.
This is just an opportunity for Firefox. The installer needs to fail more gracefully and intelligently for such things. You need to have the system not just function, not just good enough, rather it needs to be SO good that it makes people go out of their way to switch and stay switched.
My setup gives me 1-2 spam a week, at best. I post it online just to fuck with them. Bring the spam for all I care, it gives me a couple clicks and a feeling of accomplishment.... It sounds lame, but I just use gmail for everything. VERY good spam, no setup, no hassle. Just start flagging spam and it seems to learn/adapt. Set a decent password, and use filter/labels for address book people you get a lot of mail from(couple a week, or more), etc.
Plus I get virtually 365/7/24 uptime... I mean, if google goes down, the world probably has bigger problems... Like the internet going down.
The kids hacked into a federal agency. That alone needs to have a significant bitch-slap associated, it doesn't matter to what end he took it, there needs to be a minimum ass kicking when you hack into the federal government.
If the kid was smart enough to hack into a server(s?), he is smart enough not to do it with federal equipment, as their are thousands of just as vulnerable and lower-profile systems out there.
The kid is an idiot for doing this, he deserves a good punishment. He brought it on himself.
To each his own. They do their work, and it is a PRIVILEGE that they freely and openly share that work with us. If THEO wants to fork a BSD-licensed system and create an extremely secure system, great, he gets to do it how he wants, at his pace, on his time.
His work is a PRIVILEGE for the community, not a right. OpenBSD isn't something you deserve or can demand, it is the benevolence of a talented guy, don't take it for granted, appreciate it.
because bittorrent isn't efficient enough to handle things like www traffic and html pages. Nor does it combine well with mysql+php or database-driven sites.
I think the next big step (generation?) is going to be a protocol that can handle www-style traffic, and can somehow work with databases. Doing this through natural-load balancing and identity hiding(anonymity), etc.
Bittorrent can do the load balancing, but it is too chatty for doing things like www that require a lot of updating, etc. Not like big files.
Some type of web-cache sharing system, that md5/hashes each (static.htm.html, self-contained?) page and knows a lot of peers for quick and efficient near real-time sharing of files.
Things like databases, and scripts get things tricky though. Pages need to be self-contained(anchor links, gmail style dynamic showing/hiding of content, and what not), though.
"So unless you grabbed it while it was "hot" - you will have to deal with much lower speeds."
Well, ya. When there are fewer people uploading the file, you are going to have a lower download. Worst case it should be 1:1 with ftp or http. Best, case, it is exponentially faster than that.
A smarter algo for capping upload/download for when the 'rush' has passed might be in order. But if you missed the rush initially, ofcourse your speed is going to be slower, fewer people are uploading the file for you.
Personally, I am more looking forward to the streamswarming, to take advantage of TV over IP-type, that prioritizes the file's peices such that you can view as you download, rather than a bittorrent where you have to dowload the entire file first.
Popularity is part of it, but far from all of it. Windows ships open, with services on. Mac OS X, on the other hand, even though it supports SMB and what not for networking, has ONLY SSH running on a standard install, not other network services are on.
Now, in this case, Apple only has 1 real fear in remote outbreaks, not multiple. If SSH get exploited, they have bigger problems, in all honesty. Microsoft ships with services on, which, if they weren't would make the system much less susceptible out of the box. Linux is similar in having a firewall and few/no network services on in a default install.
But if you are on an unprotected connection, Automatic Update(especially on a dial-up account) can take hours to download. Even on broadband accounts, the AU timer is a random check in a 48-hour something window to hit the WU server and check for new updates... It is highly inefficient for initial patching.
American's, and European powers have screwed other countries, and we are now(and have in the past, and will continue to) be repaid for it.
However, I have to bring in the extreme example to best show my point. Hitler. For general purposes, we will consider him to be a leader of a once good nation gone to shit, he gave his countrymen a scapegoat and gave them confidence... Then promptly led them to genocide and world war.
It is a chicken/egg issue. The world would(in theory, atleast) be safe if no one broke other's rules, etc. Well, we can't do that until there is no threat to us(no, not iraq, something more like Iran/North Korea and nuclear bombs). We can't just say "ok, well north korea can now attack X number of countries with atomic weapons, but if we don't bother them they won't use them, so we will be ok". No, North Korea isn't run by the most trustworthy or logical folk, they don't have any penalties for starting a world war other than their own lives and their conscience.
If all the governments of the world were democratic/republican, and thus represented the will of the people according to the people(with term limits, etc, etc), then yes. I absolutely agree we would be able to move to a place(slowly, not immediately, because of a building of trust) where militaries are virtually unneeded and bombs are a thing of the past.
The problem is, their are dictatorships and corrupt governments that don't have the will of the people in mind, and don't have a conscious over their actions(again, Hitler, or China invading Tibet). What is to stop a psycho with nukes from using them? Their own fear of death, and with death, the loss of their power.
The day we move to a place where Mutual Assured Annihilation isn't what keeps us "safe", is a day I will dance in the street. We are not at that day, nor are we close to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely agreed. The problem is, geeks have gotten tired of Freenet not working.
When it is recommended to run the service for several *days* (to fill your local cache through routed information), Freenet doesn't work. I think a broadband user should get ~= dialup speeds using a freenet-like network. After a brief time of running the service(less than an hour. THe network should be able to discover/learn my presence completely in a resaonable time) and route information to me effectively.
Freesites often do not work. They often take minutes to work, even after letting the service run for hours on end.
I am a *huge* supporter of the idea of Freenet. But it just doesn't work. It takes WAY too long to completely discover/join the network, it takes to long to retrieve information FROM the network, and it just doesn't function in a usable way.
I don't know if this is coding bugs that just cause inefficiencies. Broken routing system. Not enough nodes. I don't know. Stories of freenet nodes pounding IP addresses requesting data after a freenet client has been turned off for several days, for instance, is rediculous.
What is it that has caused so much development trouble with Freent? Why is it seem to be constantly broken and overly slow?
(I won't try and keep up with the metaphors)
OK, so from your post we have two things..
1. It took WAY too long to open a log file, reasonable complaint.
2. You haven't seen a justified example of why a high(er/est?) end (g5 powermac, given the 3k figure) is worth the money.
Well, I will tell you why I find my $1480 laptop well worth the money. (12in 1ghz powerbook + wifi card, 512 ram added after purchase)
1. It works. I find Apple's computers to be much more straightforward and manageable. Settings are logical, and consitent across the system. Things work as they say and there is very little 'ok, that didn't go as planned, let me fiddle around with it'
Note: I am a knowledge(power user/well above average) tech at a school district. Been working on PCs for several years. I don't know everything, but I am pretty damn capable to troubleshoot the vast majority of windows fuck ups.
2. It is stable.
It just hasn't really died on me. Application works great, system is robust. XP is near/at this level in most respects(see next point), but I just like the system that keeps working, and this does.
3. Safe. First, I like being able to handle 'sensitive(windows viruses is an extreme case, but more often damagin batch files, poorly written software or adware ridden crap and the like) on my mac without worrying about double-clicking it or having to zip it up. I can read the code from crap that would thrash my windows box, and so I am immune to such things... This gives me a lot of freedom.
4. Secure. It just is more secure than windows. No activex crap, only ssh(!) is turned on by default. It is more secure in design. no root user, only su/sudo decent firewall builtin, with many really good free ones(better than zonealarm and the like, imo) available for added features. Mac OS X lets you do a lot of things like require a password to change anything 'important', similar to Linux, lets you encrypt your home folder, lock down(require passwords) on system preferences. Doesn't open shit automatically.
5. Unix. I can compile/install/use tons of linux and freebsd apps. No hassle, clean setup and go. From common stuff like lynx, to more exotic stuff like ettercap or ethereal. And with Apple's x11 server(it isn't perfect, but fulyl functional), I can run linux-based gui programs as well. This opens up every major market of software (classic mac, mac os x, unix command line, X11/Unix gui, Java, Windows 95->xp with VPC). Windows can't do that. Linux can't do that.
To sum up. The system is more consistent and guess-able (preferences are 99.99% always CMD+, in any native app), etc. It is more secure, free from adware/crap software that auto-installs, and immune to windows viruses. It lets me run linux/x11 and Java apps really well, and really fast(Java is very well integrated, linux/x11 is native speeds).
It gives me more power, with less hassle, in a cleaner, more attractive package. You are DAMN RIGHT it was worth every penny.
Steve Jobs a couple years back(2001?) was payed $1 for his CEO position at Apple.
They also happened to rent from his a personal jet for corporate use, so in the end, he made significant income. Just nontraditionally.
Don't have a link. But, and I may be wrong, but I thought this was a stipulation associated with anti-slavery and worker's rights. Making it illegal to work someone for free (slave/indentured servant) to get rid of sweat shops and the like.
Seems like that was the motivation for that 'clause' somewhere.
The new file formats (specifically the one Quicktime 7 will be using, h.264) gives significantly better quality video over the same bandwidth, and it scales from small res cell phones to high-definition TVs. Should solve a lot of problems, if it lives up to the hype.
When can such monitoring capabilities be added to things like Linux, Mac OS X (Server) or FreeBSD? Granted, some hardware is required for part of these redundant services, but not all.
Your post doesn't completely make sense, but for what its worth, Apple isn't 'hiding' anything with their software.
Turning on WEP means that you are both encrypting the traffic, and requiring authentication(WEP Key ~= Network Password). Your 'guests' all need to know this key and manually enter it on their computers to be able to use your network.
The parallels of afgan/iraq to US vs. Britian to US is staggering at times.
The US used terrorist/guerilla warfare at times(and why not?) to defeat the world power at the time, thought to be unbeatable. The same is happening in the mid-east, to an extent, of course.
However, there is still the central torrent tracker to shutdown. This just makes it (somewhat) harder to discover who is running it.
You get what you pay for. Why save 300 bucks when your system will likely last 30% shorter than the higher-quality system? Why saved a hundred bucks when your productivity isn't as high or when the system is just not fast enough?
TCO != ICO
So why isn't Ubuntu, Mandrake or Redhat(they left this potential market to Fedora, but still), throwing themselves to get pre-bundled with crap-level systems? Lindows/Linspire is trying. Hopefully, it benefits Linux as a whole, but having a bastardized half-n-half system may be worse than a truer-blood Linux system.
To a true newb. Running Windows is somewhat familiar... Buttons and colors and windows. When moving to a new system, there is an important step. The system has to be different enough that it cannot be confused with the original, it has to be different enough so that the user EXPECTS things to be different, and thus, they won't get upset when they aren't like they were("well, this LOOKS like windows XP, so Why can't I run game X, or find a setting in Y?!"). There needs to be a clear "ok, this ISN'T Windows, and so things will be different" mindset, otherwise we are setting ourselves up for failure.
So they are playing devil's advocate... Not like /. doesn't paint Microsoft in the same light regularly.
This is just an opportunity for Firefox. The installer needs to fail more gracefully and intelligently for such things. You need to have the system not just function, not just good enough, rather it needs to be SO good that it makes people go out of their way to switch and stay switched.
My setup gives me 1-2 spam a week, at best. I post it online just to fuck with them. Bring the spam for all I care, it gives me a couple clicks and a feeling of accomplishment.... It sounds lame, but I just use gmail for everything. VERY good spam, no setup, no hassle. Just start flagging spam and it seems to learn/adapt. Set a decent password, and use filter/labels for address book people you get a lot of mail from(couple a week, or more), etc.
Plus I get virtually 365/7/24 uptime... I mean, if google goes down, the world probably has bigger problems... Like the internet going down.
1. Default install of OpenBSD, unplugged from a network, in a locked safe... turned off.
What does it matter who hosts it? You don't think ISPs have the last say on port and protocol shaping/capping?
The kids hacked into a federal agency. That alone needs to have a significant bitch-slap associated, it doesn't matter to what end he took it, there needs to be a minimum ass kicking when you hack into the federal government.
If the kid was smart enough to hack into a server(s?), he is smart enough not to do it with federal equipment, as their are thousands of just as vulnerable and lower-profile systems out there.
The kid is an idiot for doing this, he deserves a good punishment. He brought it on himself.
To each his own. They do their work, and it is a PRIVILEGE that they freely and openly share that work with us. If THEO wants to fork a BSD-licensed system and create an extremely secure system, great, he gets to do it how he wants, at his pace, on his time.
His work is a PRIVILEGE for the community, not a right. OpenBSD isn't something you deserve or can demand, it is the benevolence of a talented guy, don't take it for granted, appreciate it.
because bittorrent isn't efficient enough to handle things like www traffic and html pages. Nor does it combine well with mysql+php or database-driven sites.
.htm .html, self-contained?) page and knows a lot of peers for quick and efficient near real-time sharing of files.
I think the next big step (generation?) is going to be a protocol that can handle www-style traffic, and can somehow work with databases. Doing this through natural-load balancing and identity hiding(anonymity), etc.
Bittorrent can do the load balancing, but it is too chatty for doing things like www that require a lot of updating, etc. Not like big files.
Some type of web-cache sharing system, that md5/hashes each (static
Things like databases, and scripts get things tricky though. Pages need to be self-contained(anchor links, gmail style dynamic showing/hiding of content, and what not), though.
"So unless you grabbed it while it was "hot" - you will have to deal with much lower speeds."
Well, ya. When there are fewer people uploading the file, you are going to have a lower download. Worst case it should be 1:1 with ftp or http. Best, case, it is exponentially faster than that.
A smarter algo for capping upload/download for when the 'rush' has passed might be in order. But if you missed the rush initially, ofcourse your speed is going to be slower, fewer people are uploading the file for you.
Personally, I am more looking forward to the streamswarming, to take advantage of TV over IP-type, that prioritizes the file's peices such that you can view as you download, rather than a bittorrent where you have to dowload the entire file first.
Popularity is part of it, but far from all of it. Windows ships open, with services on. Mac OS X, on the other hand, even though it supports SMB and what not for networking, has ONLY SSH running on a standard install, not other network services are on.
Now, in this case, Apple only has 1 real fear in remote outbreaks, not multiple. If SSH get exploited, they have bigger problems, in all honesty. Microsoft ships with services on, which, if they weren't would make the system much less susceptible out of the box. Linux is similar in having a firewall and few/no network services on in a default install.
But if you are on an unprotected connection, Automatic Update(especially on a dial-up account) can take hours to download. Even on broadband accounts, the AU timer is a random check in a 48-hour something window to hit the WU server and check for new updates... It is highly inefficient for initial patching.
You were probably behind a firewall, or atleast a NAT or similar.
Setup a standard 2000 or XP system in the DMZ anywhere, and you will be hacked within minutes, not hours.
The one that gets sold on an IBM server with an IBM support contract.
How about using SELinux (plus extensions?) to setup Access Control Lists and encrypt/strong wipe the swap drive?
Mac OS X 10.4(i believe) will support encrypting the swap file, and is going to use ACLs to boot. Linux is surely capable, I would assume.
I completely agree, mostly...
American's, and European powers have screwed other countries, and we are now(and have in the past, and will continue to) be repaid for it.
However, I have to bring in the extreme example to best show my point. Hitler. For general purposes, we will consider him to be a leader of a once good nation gone to shit, he gave his countrymen a scapegoat and gave them confidence... Then promptly led them to genocide and world war.
It is a chicken/egg issue. The world would(in theory, atleast) be safe if no one broke other's rules, etc. Well, we can't do that until there is no threat to us(no, not iraq, something more like Iran/North Korea and nuclear bombs). We can't just say "ok, well north korea can now attack X number of countries with atomic weapons, but if we don't bother them they won't use them, so we will be ok". No, North Korea isn't run by the most trustworthy or logical folk, they don't have any penalties for starting a world war other than their own lives and their conscience.
If all the governments of the world were democratic/republican, and thus represented the will of the people according to the people(with term limits, etc, etc), then yes. I absolutely agree we would be able to move to a place(slowly, not immediately, because of a building of trust) where militaries are virtually unneeded and bombs are a thing of the past.
The problem is, their are dictatorships and corrupt governments that don't have the will of the people in mind, and don't have a conscious over their actions(again, Hitler, or China invading Tibet). What is to stop a psycho with nukes from using them? Their own fear of death, and with death, the loss of their power.
The day we move to a place where Mutual Assured Annihilation isn't what keeps us "safe", is a day I will dance in the street. We are not at that day, nor are we close to it.