6 ms·

GNUnet

83 points by gnosis 16y ago

hollerith 16y ago
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gnunet https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gnunet -- why such an ugly URL? Bad enough that the less ugly style of URL has the unnecessary /wiki/ in it.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Why focus on the least relevant aspect of the whole thing? Did you even read what this is about? What it does, how and why?
  - hollerith 16y ago
    Yes.
- Andrenid 16y ago
  This is just a wiki article explaining it, the URL is irrelevant here. The actual website for the project is https://gnunet.org/ https://gnunet.org/
- csarva 16y ago
  This is how links are rendered on Wikipedia's SSL server. The standard non-SSL page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnunet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnunet
canadaduane 16y ago
Does anyone else feel repulsed by the name itself? Every time I see GNU something, I think "extreme ideology with an ugly name". Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for what GNU did in the 80s and 90s, and I think it still has value (albeit, I think middle way approaches such as creative commons, MIT, Apache License, and others have won the popular geek mind for now). But IMHO, they need to rebrand.
- aphexairlines 16y ago
  > creative commons, MIT, Apache License, and others have won the popular geek mind for now Nope, GPL variants are still the most popular licenses: http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses#top20 http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses#top20
  - sjs 16y ago
    I think you misunderstood canadaduane's point. There's no denying that a lot of popular open source software is not GPL these days. Chromium, Rails, Ruby, Python, PHP, Riak, jQuery, SproutCore, basically everything from Apache and Mozilla including Firefox and CouchDB, etc. There are exceptions like MySQL and MongoDB but they are exactly that, exceptions. Some of them are big ones such as Linux distros, I'm not saying there isn't a lot of existing GPL software out there today. I'd like to see license stats from BitBucket, Google Code, and Github.
    - aphexairlines 16y ago
      When 60% of projects are GPL, then it's pretty much the default licensing scheme and chromium, jquery, etc are the exceptions.
      - sjs 16y ago
        There's no argument there. However I see more new projects that use MIT/BSD/Apache or similar than GPL. It could just be the projects I come across and/or are interested in, but I keep pretty broad tabs on technology and use various OSs on a daily basis. I suppose if you use Linux most of the time you will see a ton of GPL software relative to other licenses, but if you look at cross-platform and web stuff I see less GPL. Just my observation.
      - rimantas 16y ago
        Look not at the status quo, look at the trends. My non-scientific perception is also that new projects tend to use less restrictive licensing. And I like it.
scommab 16y ago
Does anyone know how this compares to Freenet? The FAQ talks about it a bit [ https://gnunet.org/faq/10 https://gnunet.org/faq/10 ] but for example, I don't understand what "Economics" means in this context?
- StuffMaster 16y ago
  With Freenet, you allocate storage, and content gets distributed throughout the network based on popularity. It's designed so that it is impossible to know what is in even your own store. Files must be "inserted". You can't really perform a search. If GNUnet is like other file sharing, you share files while you are online, responding to searches and transferring files that are requested.
  - flatulent1 16y ago
    Yes. It is also worth mentioning that GNUnet is designed to be a secure framework, making it more than just the core of another P2P program. For instance it potentially might be used as the basis for other functions such as chat or VoIP without reinventing all of the low-level transport stuff. With GPL licensing it is likely to evolve as people imagine new enhancements. Short and giving a clue as to function and freedom the name seems a good choice to me. The (GNU) GPL insures that the users and community will not be restricted from making their own fixes or enhancements. I think it is misleading when some refer to a permissive license as restrictive. You're given permission to do practically anything to the code for your own use, and basically have permission to distribute it to others too as long as you DON'T impose new restrictions on them.
turbojerry 16y ago
You might also want to check out Mute, which uses ant based routing- http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/ http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/
tmaly 16y ago
If only some social replacement for FB could be layered on this, it would be great for privacy.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

83 points by gnosis 16y ago

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gnunet https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gnunet -- why such an ugly URL? Bad enough that the less ugly style of URL has the unnecessary /wiki/ in it.

rbanffy 16y ago
Why focus on the least relevant aspect of the whole thing? Did you even read what this is about? What it does, how and why?
- hollerith 16y ago
  Yes.
Andrenid 16y ago
This is just a wiki article explaining it, the URL is irrelevant here. The actual website for the project is https://gnunet.org/ https://gnunet.org/
csarva 16y ago
This is how links are rendered on Wikipedia's SSL server. The standard non-SSL page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnunet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnunet

canadaduane 16y ago

Does anyone else feel repulsed by the name itself? Every time I see GNU something, I think "extreme ideology with an ugly name". Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for what GNU did in the 80s and 90s, and I think it still has value (albeit, I think middle way approaches such as creative commons, MIT, Apache License, and others have won the popular geek mind for now). But IMHO, they need to rebrand.

aphexairlines 16y ago
> creative commons, MIT, Apache License, and others have won the popular geek mind for now Nope, GPL variants are still the most popular licenses: http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses#top20 http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses#top20
- sjs 16y ago
  I think you misunderstood canadaduane's point. There's no denying that a lot of popular open source software is not GPL these days. Chromium, Rails, Ruby, Python, PHP, Riak, jQuery, SproutCore, basically everything from Apache and Mozilla including Firefox and CouchDB, etc. There are exceptions like MySQL and MongoDB but they are exactly that, exceptions. Some of them are big ones such as Linux distros, I'm not saying there isn't a lot of existing GPL software out there today. I'd like to see license stats from BitBucket, Google Code, and Github.
  - aphexairlines 16y ago
    When 60% of projects are GPL, then it's pretty much the default licensing scheme and chromium, jquery, etc are the exceptions.
    - sjs 16y ago
      There's no argument there. However I see more new projects that use MIT/BSD/Apache or similar than GPL. It could just be the projects I come across and/or are interested in, but I keep pretty broad tabs on technology and use various OSs on a daily basis. I suppose if you use Linux most of the time you will see a ton of GPL software relative to other licenses, but if you look at cross-platform and web stuff I see less GPL. Just my observation.
    - rimantas 16y ago
      Look not at the status quo, look at the trends. My non-scientific perception is also that new projects tend to use less restrictive licensing. And I like it.

scommab 16y ago

Does anyone know how this compares to Freenet? The FAQ talks about it a bit [ https://gnunet.org/faq/10 https://gnunet.org/faq/10 ] but for example, I don't understand what "Economics" means in this context?

StuffMaster 16y ago
With Freenet, you allocate storage, and content gets distributed throughout the network based on popularity. It's designed so that it is impossible to know what is in even your own store. Files must be "inserted". You can't really perform a search. If GNUnet is like other file sharing, you share files while you are online, responding to searches and transferring files that are requested.
- flatulent1 16y ago
  Yes. It is also worth mentioning that GNUnet is designed to be a secure framework, making it more than just the core of another P2P program. For instance it potentially might be used as the basis for other functions such as chat or VoIP without reinventing all of the low-level transport stuff. With GPL licensing it is likely to evolve as people imagine new enhancements. Short and giving a clue as to function and freedom the name seems a good choice to me. The (GNU) GPL insures that the users and community will not be restricted from making their own fixes or enhancements. I think it is misleading when some refer to a permissive license as restrictive. You're given permission to do practically anything to the code for your own use, and basically have permission to distribute it to others too as long as you DON'T impose new restrictions on them.

turbojerry 16y ago

You might also want to check out Mute, which uses ant based routing- http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/ http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/

tmaly 16y ago

If only some social replacement for FB could be layered on this, it would be great for privacy.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]