Re:Why not a community based p2p client/network ?
on
Razorback2 Servers Seized
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
opensource community create a real completely decentralized p2p network?
Check.
- It has to be truly decentralized. No main server. Whatsoever. Except websites to download clients. It has to be able to discover new clients/networks/etc...
Check.
- Specs have to be open so anyone can implement a client.
Check.
- It has to be secured. Using SSL for example.
No. What would your goal be in using SSL?
- It has to work from behind firewalls.
Check (unless both people are behind firewalls, in which case they've chosen to cut themselves off from the real peer-to-peer Internet anyway).
- It has to be secure enough to differentiate dups and fake files.
Check (via add-on systems like Bitzi).
- Searches have to be decentralized, but cached, and verified for integrity.
Check to decentralized and cached (at least people have talked about it...not sure whether it's actually done). What does "verified for integrity" mean?
- Of course, it has to be ad-free/spyware-free.
Well, there has to be such a servent, yes.
- It has to be built upon security, safety/integrity of the files and users in mind.
What do you mean by this?
- Most of all, it has to be thought off as a legal project with legal uses so it can't be stopped.
I am erotic. You are kinky. They are perverts. We protect. Our allies enforce. Our enemies oppress. Congress appropriates. Microsoft lobbies. Citizens steal.
Well, I'd already marked you as a friend, so I can't do that, but this is a wonderful post.
AFS is fast and AFS can be secure...but AFS is also a pain in the ass to set up outside of a corporate environment. When I can do yum install afs; chkconfig --level 35 afs on; service afs start and don't have to configure anything else from defaults (or maybe have a two-field GUI application to plug two values into, or something like that), then AFS can replace NFS.
I know that Red Hat is pushing GFS. I don't really care that much what becomes popular; I'm just frusterated that there is not a ubiquitous, fast, secure, easy-to-set-up, *working* network filesystem on all Linux boxes.
+ We put Linux on our i486-33 Servers -- Who cares? IDC doesn't, they're counting new server revenue.
Something like two thirds of the Linux servers in my department *were* originally Windows boxes.
So not only did those get counted into the Windows numbers, they also mean that we're saving money on purchasing costs (since otherwise the machines would have gone away), that we're using commodity x86 hardware (instead of pricy SPARC stuff -- the only Sun boxes are old), etc.
So while our Unix-related spending hasn't gone up at all, except for a couple copies of RHEL that are used for testing, Linux usage has steadily increased.
The only people who give a damn about top server sales are Dell and their shareholders. The article is not useful for those who are trying to decide what to use.
Look at the numbers. They are *dollar values*. They are not "number of installed servers this year". There's a reason for that.
You know whose lunch Linux has been eating? Solaris's. AIX's. HP/UX's.
You know how much a typical Solaris deployment with commercial servers would have cost? Right. $$$.
You know how much a typical *Linux* server costs? Right. In most cases, nothing. Sure, you can get Red Hat Enterprise and use a commercial Apache replacement and a commercial ssh, but that isn't what most Linux servers I'm aware of are running.
This has been making the dollar size of the market drop like a stone. That says nothing about amount of deployments. That just says that Sun and friends are bringing a lot less money home than they used to, and it's staying with the people who are using the servers.
"Windows Bumps Unix as Top Server OS"? Hardly. "Windows Bumps Unix as Most Expensive Server OS", perhaps.
I think that you could make a video game that would be fun to watch.
But it would be very different from current video games (it wouldn't just be "Halo, but displayed on a lot of screens), and probably would be a lot less fun for the players to play. Consider how American football's rules get tweaked periodically -- that's not to make the game more fun for the players, but to make it more entertaining to watch.
Among other things:
*) You probably want some kind of "edge" or advantage that goes back or forth. In most televised sports, there's some sort of "ball position" on the field. It's not fun to just watch someone twitch faster than someone else with a rocket.
*) I think that a televised game probably has to be team-based. A fan can empathize with a team more than one person.
*) The rules would have to remain pretty much the same for a long time, so that viewers can learn and appreciate them. You can't just be playing the latest and greatest video game out. You need a game that stays the same for many years (maybe with slight tweaks to the rules, and obviously the renderer could be improved).
*) I don't think that simple twitch games would do so well. A typical good FPS player is hard to appreciate by anyone other than another FPS player, and it's not much fun to watch. In something like hockey, there are lots of things interacting that make for good slow-motions. In Halo, the question becomes who aimed and clicked at someone else first.
*) There needs to be one point to focus on. Maybe a "capture the flag" style game would be a start, but just watching people shoot other people means that there's no focal point to watch. In major televised sports, there is one ball or puck or whatever to watch that the camera can follow.
*) There needs to be several different types of skill that work together. People like being able to think through the high-level strategy, given some measureable characteristics of the players. In baseball, you have fast people and power hitters. In American football, the characteristics of people who play different positions are striking. In a game, you don't have much by way of physical differences, and most of the mental tasks are fairly similar...you have people who are good at shooting other people. That means a bunch of interchangeable clones doing pretty much the same thing. There are a couple games that vaguely have some efforts in the idea of necessary classes, like Team Fortress.
*) Most televised sports have breaks of some sort -- penalties or between plays, or whatever, that allow slapping advertisements in to fill the gaps. Not many video games have anything like this.
The only games I can think of that try to be appealing to people watching them have been arcade games, and those usually did that by avoiding repetitiveness and constantly throwing new content up on the screen. That kind of "novelty" approach doesn't really apply to a sport.
Basically, what I'm saying is that while I think that it's possible to make a videogame broadcast-based entertainment franchise, it would not be the sort of thing where people just play the same games they do at home and then get paid for it.
The primary complaint is basically that what gets translated to "homosexuality" was pederasty, which is the sort of relationship that Socrates or NAMBLA would advocate -- a boy and a man, not two men.
What I have done for all the DVDs in my OWN collection is bypass the DRM using DVD decrypter (w00t!) because I am sick of these goddamn preveiews, menus, copyright notices, birth control notices, and other shit.
I have a secondhand Linux box with mplayer, a DVD drive and TV out hooked up to the TV. Unskippable previews? I think not.
So, IMO, expose your kids to technology as soon as you can while your kids still listen to you and have the umbrella of the home to provide them a place to experiment with life. Stay involved with your kids, make them think on their own. I think the worst thing you could do is protect them by hiding things from them and pretend such things don't exist.
That's how X11 works. That's not a failing of GNOME or KDE to cooperate. X11 could have a new extension, but you can hardly blame GNOME or KDE over that.
From a *user* standpoint (not an Xlib developer), if you want Windows-like behavior (copying creates a duplicate of the data you're copying), use a clipboard manager. GNOME provides Gnome Clipboard Manager and KDE provides Klipper, (and since you're apparently having problems, I would assume they are not enabled by default).
Then you can demonstrate to your friends how when *they* copy something, their previous clipboard contents are irrevocably lost, but your clipboard manager can store up to N old copies of data.
If you're looking to do any real serious 3D work, then they should be teaching something along the lines of Maya, XSI, etc (as in, programs that the real world uses).
You know, the reason that the real world uses X is partly because everyone is learning X...
They need a strong sysadmin to enforce rigid policies.
Sheer irritation with the security IT people where I currently work is the single largest driving force convincing me to look elsewhere for a job. They're such a pain in the ass.
If you're referring to Numbers, then that would be the Jewish religion. The old covenant pointed to and then passed away with the coming of the Christ. Christians are under the new covenant found in the New Testament.
Would you please tell the gay-hating Christians that their doctrinal support is two thousand years out of date, then?
(In reality, Christianity hung on to whatever chunks of the Bible most suited it and tied in with social norms. Lots of the Bible is ignored today, but other chunks are still followed.)
The key difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists right now is that Christain fundamentalists typically have a pretty decent quality of life, and Islamic fundamentalists don't.
You're thinking of the US. In the US, Christianity doesn't do much more than impose censorship, misallocate resources, and allow Africans to die of AIDS because condoms offend their sensibilities. As you've pointed out, fat, wealthy people have a lot of inertia to stay where they are.
However, if you want to see Christians and Muslims both bloodily killing each other en masse, you need look no further than Indonesia.
Maybe some readers think that somehow, it was Muslims provoking the whole thing -- I refer them to Ireland, with many years of Christians killing Christians in the same sort of bombings that people look with horror at in the Middle East today.
As for the Crusades, a set of Pope-led invasions and massacres...well.
Christianity has committed many, many atrocities and killings over the years, the same as Islam. Neither religion can claim a moral high ground as regards killings.
Making something "wrong" is just an association society instills in kids because it doesn't want those kids, as adults, to do something.
Causing pain and killing humans both get an inculcation of "wrong".
When it turns out that you have to do one or the other, you get situations where, instead of thinking the actual issues through, people just follow this brick-stupid gut feeling that's been hammered into them at about age two. Which is kind of depressing.
When was the last time Christians murdered someone for being homosexual?
Funny, that. I was just reading this. (Armenia was the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state religion, and has an even higher chunk of Christian population than the United States.)
WWII was such a different war than the ones that came after it (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.).
Oooh! Oooooh! I know why it was different! It was because the last time Congress declared war was World War II, and every time after that has been the President un-Constitutionally abusing his powers to wage war!
The Wikipedia Windows Vista page has had the list for months now. Either Slashdot is reporting this story really late, or Microsoft's leaks are really late.
Your problem is the crowd of people who inhabit the business tech world and liked to say "XML!" "Java!" "Multi-tiered!" and so forth a great deal. They read business tech rags that pushed so much sales hype about various things in through their ears that the nonsense started overflowing through their mouths. The "buzzword-complient" crowd.
Those people are the ones who are currently saying "Web 2.0", "Web services are the future", and so forth. It's a load of nonsense.
I really like reading Paul Graham's writings. When I first discovered them, I went straight through them, and while they get kind of redundant (and I think that he's way, way too defensive on Lisp -- sounds like a guy who has heard one too many "Why aren't you using C++ again?" questions), I think that they pretty consistently would get +5 Insightful mods were they Slashdot posts.
I also wondered the same thing -- PG talks about how great it is to be your own boss, to start up a new company, etc, etc...but the obvious question is....why not keep that going? Okay, sure, if he's just trying to draw attention to Y-Combinator, then it makes sense. Y-Combinator wants to sell off its startups and see return. However, he talks about how happy he was at ViaWeb, and how unhappy he was after he sold out to Yahoo.
Why not just keep doing ViaWeb? Because he chose to cash in his chips, and he thinks everyone else should do the same thing?
While I think that he gives great pep talks for doing startups, I'm not sure that I'd want to actually work with Y Combinator. What's impressive is PG's writings, not necessarily the firm he runs. I think that if I chose to do a startup, I'd rather avoid Y Combinator, self-fund, and grow slowly if necessary instead of trying to expand like crazy. How many people do you really need to have to run a successful Web-based business?
I do like the points he makes about the OS and language freedom offered by doing Web services.
The GNOME plug-in architecture is named after monkeys that are known for constantly plugging into each other in all kinds of ways. I thought that it was hillarious when I first heard it, but maybe it's less obvious than I thought.
Slashdot Mirror
opensource community create a real completely decentralized p2p network?
Check.
- It has to be truly decentralized. No main server. Whatsoever. Except websites to download clients. It has to be able to discover new clients/networks/etc...
Check.
- Specs have to be open so anyone can implement a client.
Check.
- It has to be secured. Using SSL for example.
No. What would your goal be in using SSL?
- It has to work from behind firewalls.
Check (unless both people are behind firewalls, in which case they've chosen to cut themselves off from the real peer-to-peer Internet anyway).
- It has to be secure enough to differentiate dups and fake files.
Check (via add-on systems like Bitzi).
- Searches have to be decentralized, but cached, and verified for integrity.
Check to decentralized and cached (at least people have talked about it...not sure whether it's actually done). What does "verified for integrity" mean?
- Of course, it has to be ad-free/spyware-free.
Well, there has to be such a servent, yes.
- It has to be built upon security, safety/integrity of the files and users in mind.
What do you mean by this?
- Most of all, it has to be thought off as a legal project with legal uses so it can't be stopped.
Check.
Use Gnutella recently?
I am erotic. You are kinky. They are perverts.
We protect. Our allies enforce. Our enemies oppress.
Congress appropriates. Microsoft lobbies. Citizens steal.
Well, I'd already marked you as a friend, so I can't do that, but this is a wonderful post.
AFS is fast and AFS can be secure...but AFS is also a pain in the ass to set up outside of a corporate environment. When I can do yum install afs; chkconfig --level 35 afs on; service afs start and don't have to configure anything else from defaults (or maybe have a two-field GUI application to plug two values into, or something like that), then AFS can replace NFS.
I know that Red Hat is pushing GFS. I don't really care that much what becomes popular; I'm just frusterated that there is not a ubiquitous, fast, secure, easy-to-set-up, *working* network filesystem on all Linux boxes.
+ We put Linux on our i486-33 Servers
-- Who cares? IDC doesn't, they're counting new server revenue.
Something like two thirds of the Linux servers in my department *were* originally Windows boxes.
So not only did those get counted into the Windows numbers, they also mean that we're saving money on purchasing costs (since otherwise the machines would have gone away), that we're using commodity x86 hardware (instead of pricy SPARC stuff -- the only Sun boxes are old), etc.
So while our Unix-related spending hasn't gone up at all, except for a couple copies of RHEL that are used for testing, Linux usage has steadily increased.
The only people who give a damn about top server sales are Dell and their shareholders. The article is not useful for those who are trying to decide what to use.
Look at the numbers. They are *dollar values*. They are not "number of installed servers this year". There's a reason for that.
You know whose lunch Linux has been eating? Solaris's. AIX's. HP/UX's.
You know how much a typical Solaris deployment with commercial servers would have cost? Right. $$$.
You know how much a typical *Linux* server costs? Right. In most cases, nothing. Sure, you can get Red Hat Enterprise and use a commercial Apache replacement and a commercial ssh, but that isn't what most Linux servers I'm aware of are running.
This has been making the dollar size of the market drop like a stone. That says nothing about amount of deployments. That just says that Sun and friends are bringing a lot less money home than they used to, and it's staying with the people who are using the servers.
"Windows Bumps Unix as Top Server OS"? Hardly. "Windows Bumps Unix as Most Expensive Server OS", perhaps.
I think that you could make a video game that would be fun to watch.
But it would be very different from current video games (it wouldn't just be "Halo, but displayed on a lot of screens), and probably would be a lot less fun for the players to play. Consider how American football's rules get tweaked periodically -- that's not to make the game more fun for the players, but to make it more entertaining to watch.
Among other things:
*) You probably want some kind of "edge" or advantage that goes back or forth. In most televised sports, there's some sort of "ball position" on the field. It's not fun to just watch someone twitch faster than someone else with a rocket.
*) I think that a televised game probably has to be team-based. A fan can empathize with a team more than one person.
*) The rules would have to remain pretty much the same for a long time, so that viewers can learn and appreciate them. You can't just be playing the latest and greatest video game out. You need a game that stays the same for many years (maybe with slight tweaks to the rules, and obviously the renderer could be improved).
*) I don't think that simple twitch games would do so well. A typical good FPS player is hard to appreciate by anyone other than another FPS player, and it's not much fun to watch. In something like hockey, there are lots of things interacting that make for good slow-motions. In Halo, the question becomes who aimed and clicked at someone else first.
*) There needs to be one point to focus on. Maybe a "capture the flag" style game would be a start, but just watching people shoot other people means that there's no focal point to watch. In major televised sports, there is one ball or puck or whatever to watch that the camera can follow.
*) There needs to be several different types of skill that work together. People like being able to think through the high-level strategy, given some measureable characteristics of the players. In baseball, you have fast people and power hitters. In American football, the characteristics of people who play different positions are striking. In a game, you don't have much by way of physical differences, and most of the mental tasks are fairly similar...you have people who are good at shooting other people. That means a bunch of interchangeable clones doing pretty much the same thing. There are a couple games that vaguely have some efforts in the idea of necessary classes, like Team Fortress.
*) Most televised sports have breaks of some sort -- penalties or between plays, or whatever, that allow slapping advertisements in to fill the gaps. Not many video games have anything like this.
The only games I can think of that try to be appealing to people watching them have been arcade games, and those usually did that by avoiding repetitiveness and constantly throwing new content up on the screen. That kind of "novelty" approach doesn't really apply to a sport.
Basically, what I'm saying is that while I think that it's possible to make a videogame broadcast-based entertainment franchise, it would not be the sort of thing where people just play the same games they do at home and then get paid for it.
lots?
The primary complaint is basically that what gets translated to "homosexuality" was pederasty, which is the sort of relationship that Socrates or NAMBLA would advocate -- a boy and a man, not two men.
What I have done for all the DVDs in my OWN collection is bypass the DRM using DVD decrypter (w00t!) because I am sick of these goddamn preveiews, menus, copyright notices, birth control notices, and other shit.
I have a secondhand Linux box with mplayer, a DVD drive and TV out hooked up to the TV. Unskippable previews? I think not.
Fairly rare, yes.
So, IMO, expose your kids to technology as soon as you can while your kids still listen to you and have the umbrella of the home to provide them a place to experiment with life. Stay involved with your kids, make them think on their own. I think the worst thing you could do is protect them by hiding things from them and pretend such things don't exist.
Well said, sir!
That's how X11 works. That's not a failing of GNOME or KDE to cooperate. X11 could have a new extension, but you can hardly blame GNOME or KDE over that.
From a *user* standpoint (not an Xlib developer), if you want Windows-like behavior (copying creates a duplicate of the data you're copying), use a clipboard manager. GNOME provides Gnome Clipboard Manager and KDE provides Klipper, (and since you're apparently having problems, I would assume they are not enabled by default).
Then you can demonstrate to your friends how when *they* copy something, their previous clipboard contents are irrevocably lost, but your clipboard manager can store up to N old copies of data.
When he implements it for Linux and I get really, really stupid, perhaps.
If you're looking to do any real serious 3D work, then they should be teaching something along the lines of Maya, XSI, etc (as in, programs that the real world uses).
You know, the reason that the real world uses X is partly because everyone is learning X...
Boy, I hope you never read a .advocacy newsgroup. You would be one unhappy camper.
They need a strong sysadmin to enforce rigid policies.
Sheer irritation with the security IT people where I currently work is the single largest driving force convincing me to look elsewhere for a job. They're such a pain in the ass.
While I'm not a huge fan of immersing children in technology...
I am. Dump 'em in a vat of PDAs and see what burbles up.
If you're referring to Numbers, then that would be the Jewish religion. The old covenant pointed to and then passed away with the coming of the Christ. Christians are under the new covenant found in the New Testament.
Would you please tell the gay-hating Christians that their doctrinal support is two thousand years out of date, then?
(In reality, Christianity hung on to whatever chunks of the Bible most suited it and tied in with social norms. Lots of the Bible is ignored today, but other chunks are still followed.)
The key difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists right now is that Christain fundamentalists typically have a pretty decent quality of life, and Islamic fundamentalists don't.
You're thinking of the US. In the US, Christianity doesn't do much more than impose censorship, misallocate resources, and allow Africans to die of AIDS because condoms offend their sensibilities. As you've pointed out, fat, wealthy people have a lot of inertia to stay where they are.
However, if you want to see Christians and Muslims both bloodily killing each other en masse, you need look no further than Indonesia.
Maybe some readers think that somehow, it was Muslims provoking the whole thing -- I refer them to Ireland, with many years of Christians killing Christians in the same sort of bombings that people look with horror at in the Middle East today.
As for the Crusades, a set of Pope-led invasions and massacres...well.
Christianity has committed many, many atrocities and killings over the years, the same as Islam. Neither religion can claim a moral high ground as regards killings.
Making something "wrong" is just an association society instills in kids because it doesn't want those kids, as adults, to do something.
Causing pain and killing humans both get an inculcation of "wrong".
When it turns out that you have to do one or the other, you get situations where, instead of thinking the actual issues through, people just follow this brick-stupid gut feeling that's been hammered into them at about age two. Which is kind of depressing.
When was the last time Christians murdered someone for being homosexual?
Funny, that. I was just reading this. (Armenia was the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state religion, and has an even higher chunk of Christian population than the United States.)
WWII was such a different war than the ones that came after it (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.).
Oooh! Oooooh! I know why it was different! It was because the last time Congress declared war was World War II, and every time after that has been the President un-Constitutionally abusing his powers to wage war!
The Wikipedia Windows Vista page has had the list for months now. Either Slashdot is reporting this story really late, or Microsoft's leaks are really late.
Your problem is the crowd of people who inhabit the business tech world and liked to say "XML!" "Java!" "Multi-tiered!" and so forth a great deal. They read business tech rags that pushed so much sales hype about various things in through their ears that the nonsense started overflowing through their mouths. The "buzzword-complient" crowd.
Those people are the ones who are currently saying "Web 2.0", "Web services are the future", and so forth. It's a load of nonsense.
Same impression I got.
I really like reading Paul Graham's writings. When I first discovered them, I went straight through them, and while they get kind of redundant (and I think that he's way, way too defensive on Lisp -- sounds like a guy who has heard one too many "Why aren't you using C++ again?" questions), I think that they pretty consistently would get +5 Insightful mods were they Slashdot posts.
I also wondered the same thing -- PG talks about how great it is to be your own boss, to start up a new company, etc, etc...but the obvious question is....why not keep that going? Okay, sure, if he's just trying to draw attention to Y-Combinator, then it makes sense. Y-Combinator wants to sell off its startups and see return. However, he talks about how happy he was at ViaWeb, and how unhappy he was after he sold out to Yahoo.
Why not just keep doing ViaWeb? Because he chose to cash in his chips, and he thinks everyone else should do the same thing?
While I think that he gives great pep talks for doing startups, I'm not sure that I'd want to actually work with Y Combinator. What's impressive is PG's writings, not necessarily the firm he runs. I think that if I chose to do a startup, I'd rather avoid Y Combinator, self-fund, and grow slowly if necessary instead of trying to expand like crazy. How many people do you really need to have to run a successful Web-based business?
I do like the points he makes about the OS and language freedom offered by doing Web services.
The GNOME plug-in architecture is named after monkeys that are known for constantly plugging into each other in all kinds of ways. I thought that it was hillarious when I first heard it, but maybe it's less obvious than I thought.