Talk:GNUnet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Screenshots 2 Long URL 3 ecrs module urls 4 Project status 5 attacks on anonymity

[edit] Screenshots

Any screenshots out there for GNUnet or its GTK interface?

GNUnet itself is a network, you can't get a screenshot of a computer network right. There are some trace tools to create a visual representation of the neigbours of your node. Maybe this could be used somehow.

The old GNUnet-gtk in 0.6 (currently used version) is very plain and isn't as end-user-friendly as it should be for an average Joe User. It is still unclear, if it will be ported to 0.7, completely rewriten. Also "3rd party" GUIs may apear.

You still have a good point. I'm just not sure, if we have a good answer. --Easyas12c 00:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Long URL

The long example URL really stretches the page badly. Can we line-break it in any sensible way without breaking the example? Haakon 20:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Most browsers can't swap line (automaticly) in the middle of a "word". Doing it by hand would break copy/paste. So I think we can do nothing, but bug browser developers and/or part take in free software browser development. --Easyas12c 23:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Browsers aren't supposed to linebreak a long word in the middle -- that's not a missing capability, that's HTML conformance. We could perhaps insert a space in the middle of the URL to let it be linebroken. Yes, that would break copy/paste, but I doubt most readers will be interested in doing that. But I think the best thing to do is just truncate the URL in the middle with an ellipsis. People would still get an impression of how a URL looks. Haakon 11:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Many simple text editors are able to do this. Why shouldn't browsers be? Does html specifications really say a user agent is not allowed to break a word to multiple lines, no matter how long it is? That would be a design flaw in html then. Then it is even more complicated. We'd have to complain to World Wide Web Consortium. --Easyas12c 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ecrs module urls

The text about ecrs module url in the article is very hard to understand, if not impossible. --Easyas12c 23:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project status

I feel the fact that gnunet is essentially unusuable is salient information if it is to be covered in wikipedia at all. I'm not sure how this information should be presented. At the very least perhaps a notation that the software is not "ready for results-oriented users at this time, although participating may help development" or some such.

Essentially I feel that as-is the gnunet.org website and this article by extension are misleading. I and others I know have installed gnunet software and had it working (transferring identifiable real traffic in response to queries and such). My experience (similar to that of about 4 other users) on 0.7.0b was that the software consumed huge amounts of memory, cpu, and network bandwidth for up to a week (in my case), but was not able to even successfully acquire the example document (GPL COPYING file) which is of course less than 20 kilobytes in size.

Thus, in practical terms, this software does not work yet. I believe this puts it in a different category from most entries of software in wikipedia. JoshuaRodman 07:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It does work. It is just not yet very user friendly [1]. So you may have misconfigured it, misused it or simply had bad luck. It is true that GNUnet still has many unresolved bugs [2]. However this is implicitly stated in the version number. It is a defacto standard to call the first end user release 1.0.0. --Easyas12c 15:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the software may work for some people in some cases. However, there were no 'misconfiguration' steps to make. The node was up and communicating. Valid data was being passed. I managed to provide a series of items to the network complete with metadata. What did not work was downloading anything at all. That is, some data was downloaded on the default GNU COPYING file, but around 4kb was downloaded over the first day of operation. It is possible that if if I was "luckier" it may have worked in a sane fashion. But the system was up and operational, but provided laughable functionality. I set it up primarily because other people asked me whether gnunet was a viable project, stating similar results, and I simply could not believe it would work so badly, assuming they had firewall problems and the like. But as it turns out gnunet was not able to achieve even basic functionality when correctly configured.

I certain use many software packages prior to their consideration as 'final'. ext2fs v0.4 springs to mind. I don't expect perfection, but I expect core functionality to be usable. JoshuaRodman 06:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

0.7.0c seems to work a lot better than 0.7.0b. --Easyas12c 11:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

0.7.2c works really good. cpu and disk utilization are fine now ( resource limiting of cpu and network work well). 14:35, 04-oct-2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.99.234 (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] attacks on anonymity

there should be a section on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.49.159 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)