[14546] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Freenet fork appears likely (was Re: Gmane -- Re: Why is
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Schear)
Tue Oct 7 09:31:21 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:54:15 -0700
To: cypherpunks@lne.com, cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: Steve Schear <s.schear@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <p0600206bbba7a347b252@[66.149.49.6]>
>On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 11:31:36PM -0700, Ian Clarke spake thusly:
> > I have never ever characterized Freenet as being anything other than in
> > development. If you don't like the fact that Freenet is taking so-long
> > to perfect, then either help, or use Earth Station 5 - I hear its great.
>
>You never said anything to this effect when people started putting things
>in the network that could get them sent to prison so it was rather
>implicit.
>
>And now after finding that fred is unable to open /dev/random on my system
>due to what appears to be a bug (opening for write instead of read) I am
>now worried about the security of the encryption due to lack of entropy.
>I'm glad I don't use freenet for anything illegal/unpopular but I'm quite
>worried for those who do.
On IIRC a new channel #fredisdead has been receiving quite a bit of
interest (along with discussions on #anonymous and #freenet). It appears
that a small group of developers, fed up with the recent spate of Freent
problems has decided to take a step back, to release 692 and have started a
revolt.
http://mids.student.utwente.nl/~mids/freenet/fid.html
steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
