7 ms·

> scaling poorly Source? It's become satisfyingly fast for me over the past years. > only supporting static documents instead of interactive (tcp) servers.

> scaling poorly Source? It's become satisfyingly fast for me over the past years. > only supporting static documents instead of interactive (tcp) servers. You can develop dynamic services on Freenet just fine. It is just done in a different fashion technically: Instead of hosting the software on a server, and running scripts on the clients' web browser, there is no server/client model. It's true peer-to-peer: Every client is its own server, and the code runs there. I.e. users install "plugins" for Freenet, and those use the network primitives which Freenet provides to establish dynamic connections and render dynamic content. So you can have dynamic HTML if you want to. It's just not served by the sites you visit. Instead, things are developed "once and for all" as plugins for all sites and users to use. So it's kinda like "forced true decentralization". You can't just shove JavaScript down the throat of random visitors of your site. You actually have to go through the effort of making your site's service a real application which people voluntarily choose to run.

bawolff 6y ago
>> scaling poorly >Source? >It's become satisfyingly fast for me over the past years. My understanding is that freenet (At best) scales logarithmically where Tor scales mostly constantly. Scalability and (current) speed are not the same thing. However saying poorly was probably unfair, I should have said is less scalable than Tor is. > You can develop dynamic services on Freenet just fine. > [...] What you're describing is how I would define a static page (plus client side scripting). Which works fine in many use cases. But you can't ssh into some server over freenet, or plop your php site from the world wide web unchanged, on to freenet. You can do these things with Tor, along with (at least in principle) all the "true p2p" things you mentioned you can do with freenet (Obviously in the Tor case you need to have your server always going and have sufficient capacity). That's why I would describe Tor as more flexible in terms of the things you can "host" (for lack of a better word). But the flexibility comes at a cost, and in exchange for being less flexible, freenet has a lot of interesting properties that tor does not have.

bawolff 6y ago

>> scaling poorly >Source? >It's become satisfyingly fast for me over the past years. My understanding is that freenet (At best) scales logarithmically where Tor scales mostly constantly. Scalability and (current) speed are not the same thing. However saying poorly was probably unfair, I should have said is less scalable than Tor is. > You can develop dynamic services on Freenet just fine. > [...] What you're describing is how I would define a static page (plus client side scripting). Which works fine in many use cases. But you can't ssh into some server over freenet, or plop your php site from the world wide web unchanged, on to freenet. You can do these things with Tor, along with (at least in principle) all the "true p2p" things you mentioned you can do with freenet (Obviously in the Tor case you need to have your server always going and have sufficient capacity). That's why I would describe Tor as more flexible in terms of the things you can "host" (for lack of a better word). But the flexibility comes at a cost, and in exchange for being less flexible, freenet has a lot of interesting properties that tor does not have.