This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GNUnet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Any screenshots out there for GNUnet or its GTK interface?
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)
The text about ecrs module url in the article is very hard to understand, if not impossible. -- Easyas12c 23:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Update 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) for 0.8.0c, version from debian sid (unstable). gnunet-search gpl worked quickly for me; gnunet-download with the URI did nothing for about 5 minutes, i killed it, and the same command a second time got the file within a few seconds or so. The daemon gnunetd is being happily used by numerous peers without any problem. But the gnunetd.conf file lacks some basic info on what the various parameters mean, e.g. is BPS bits/second or bytes/second? is QUOTA in bytes, kbytes, Mbytes, kibibytes, Mebibytes, or whatever? i didn't try the GUI. As for the subject of this talk page section: the package was for some reason not included in the present debian stable (lenny), but it was in the previous stable (etch) and 0.8.0b is in debian testing (squeeze), so that means that in about 18-24 months (17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) + 18-24 months) 0.8.0+ will automatically make it back to the next debian stable version unless there are some special concerns. So it's still clearly in development mode, but usable by someone with moderate GNU/Linux sysadmin skills with minimal effort. i would guess (wild speculation) that lack of even one-line documentation in the config file for the daemon might have stopped it getting into lenny.
Anyway, for wikipedia purposes, in principle we should have a report by some external website, not just wikipedians. Boud ( talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
there should be a section on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.49.159 ( talk) 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
On https://gnunet.org/downloads there are no Windows binaries for download, so listing that Windows is supported is not accurate. I have not yet tested if the sources compile on Windows, but even if they did, that doesn't mean there is a windows version available, that means you can make your own unsupported windows version (there does not even appear to be windows specific build/install/config documentation on their website). BrainSlugs83 ( talk) 04:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears the latest version 0.9.3 adds a Java bindings package (i.e. so that Java developers can code against the GNUnet api). Not sure what that other java mention in the article was about, but it links directly back to this article with absolutely no explanation, which is ridiculous. BrainSlugs83 ( talk) 04:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like there is something else new in this release: "This release contains the beginnings of a new GNUnet-based Naming System (GNS), implementing a fully decentralized, backwards-compatible replacement for DNS (many important features and documentation are still missing, but the foundations are there)" -- which is really cool and exciting, which makes me even more upset that there are no windows binaries available.
The documentation link for GNS is here: https://gnunet.org/gns BrainSlugs83 ( talk) 04:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The article is a bit outdated. So let's give it an overall update. Here's the requested reference list of all links to most recent and striking description of the GNUnet in form of text, pictures, and video.
All what needs to be done now is synthesize everything for a broad audience, section by section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.172.49 ( talk) 12:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GNUnet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Any screenshots out there for GNUnet or its GTK interface?
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)
The text about ecrs module url in the article is very hard to understand, if not impossible. -- Easyas12c 23:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Update 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) for 0.8.0c, version from debian sid (unstable). gnunet-search gpl worked quickly for me; gnunet-download with the URI did nothing for about 5 minutes, i killed it, and the same command a second time got the file within a few seconds or so. The daemon gnunetd is being happily used by numerous peers without any problem. But the gnunetd.conf file lacks some basic info on what the various parameters mean, e.g. is BPS bits/second or bytes/second? is QUOTA in bytes, kbytes, Mbytes, kibibytes, Mebibytes, or whatever? i didn't try the GUI. As for the subject of this talk page section: the package was for some reason not included in the present debian stable (lenny), but it was in the previous stable (etch) and 0.8.0b is in debian testing (squeeze), so that means that in about 18-24 months (17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) + 18-24 months) 0.8.0+ will automatically make it back to the next debian stable version unless there are some special concerns. So it's still clearly in development mode, but usable by someone with moderate GNU/Linux sysadmin skills with minimal effort. i would guess (wild speculation) that lack of even one-line documentation in the config file for the daemon might have stopped it getting into lenny.
Anyway, for wikipedia purposes, in principle we should have a report by some external website, not just wikipedians. Boud ( talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
there should be a section on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.49.159 ( talk) 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
On https://gnunet.org/downloads there are no Windows binaries for download, so listing that Windows is supported is not accurate. I have not yet tested if the sources compile on Windows, but even if they did, that doesn't mean there is a windows version available, that means you can make your own unsupported windows version (there does not even appear to be windows specific build/install/config documentation on their website). BrainSlugs83 ( talk) 04:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears the latest version 0.9.3 adds a Java bindings package (i.e. so that Java developers can code against the GNUnet api). Not sure what that other java mention in the article was about, but it links directly back to this article with absolutely no explanation, which is ridiculous. BrainSlugs83 ( talk) 04:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like there is something else new in this release: "This release contains the beginnings of a new GNUnet-based Naming System (GNS), implementing a fully decentralized, backwards-compatible replacement for DNS (many important features and documentation are still missing, but the foundations are there)" -- which is really cool and exciting, which makes me even more upset that there are no windows binaries available.
The documentation link for GNS is here: https://gnunet.org/gns BrainSlugs83 ( talk) 04:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The article is a bit outdated. So let's give it an overall update. Here's the requested reference list of all links to most recent and striking description of the GNUnet in form of text, pictures, and video.
All what needs to be done now is synthesize everything for a broad audience, section by section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.172.49 ( talk) 12:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)