> Tahoe-lafs is not the same. > Freenet, if I understood it correctly, distributes files in blocks over > multiple nodes, not defined by a configuration but by demand.
Figured due to being demand based, Freenet wouldn't be useful to people who expect that their singularly unique and useful to them only files will continue to be available any particular time after injection. Free Haven and others have done some work towards some sort of global anon p2p persistant store. It is very hard to do. Whereas simple organized anon block pools are, well, simple. I'm aware of one list (any others???) where meta and hacking talk regarding different anonymous/p2p systems sometimes appears: p2p-hack...@lists.zooko.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_P2P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P2P_protocols > But it is another program you have to install, configure and whatnot. > I especially opt for integration in Tor to simply the use. Though Tor, and/or its community contributors, might choose to write a shim or collaborate on an interface in order interconnect any two particular protocols (were it even possible), there certainly won't be any coding of a given protocol clone directly into Tor just to save install. > Yes, freenet has installers etc but it is Java and everybody seems to > hate Java these days and all CERTs seem to advise people to uninstall This is just the most effective response to the typical use case by the typical masses. It would be wiser to learn how to sandbox any given application, so that when those applications fail, at least there is another layer standing in the way. _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
