Is anyone knowledgeable that can tell me the difference between
IPFS, GNUnet, Zeronet, freenet or even something like i2p, tor and urbit .. as well as probably others.
Actually I know this question is asked all the time and I do know how these differ, to some extent at least, but I just don't understand why there are all these competing standards since it's all driven by the same-ish vision.
Whenever someone accomplishes this vision though it'll be a huge game changer. IPFS feels closest to it as of now .
ipfs and zeronet (and dat project) are distributed file stores (think bittorrent), some have some special browsers n top that let you build applications
freenet is a distributed, secure content network.
i2p and tor are secure overlay neworks - run on top of the existing internet to provide secure connectivity - designed to obscure where traffic is going to and from.
gnunet and cjdns are also secure overlay networks but more like point to point vpns.
I'm rather skeptic. IMO, IPFS is just overengineered bittorrent. At the lowest layer, the semantics are the same, except with really bad ideas thrown into the mix - wantlist instead of bitmaps, forcing DAG in places where there's no use for it, all driving overall performance of the network into the ground.
Suppose I want to download a tarball of the GNUnet file sharing application. (I chose file downloading because the GNUnet Wikipedia page says file sharing is the primary application atm.)
What are the steps I need to follow in order to fire up GNUnet's filesharing application and download that file?
To whomever responds: you make the file available, and I'll try to download it.
Edit: it doesn't have to be a tarball of the app. It can be any file which I can find a hash for on clearnet. But somebody has to vouch that they are making it available over GNUnet while I try to download it.
Adoption. Users want convenience. They want to click a thing and go, not install a desktop app, configure it, learn about the networking model, etc.
Then when we've all sunk into all these convenient cloud services and "easy to use" disposable devices, we'll have lost all of our privacy and power. The corporations will get regulated, and then the government will have access and control of the systems.
And yet we'll have people argue that these open source and federated/distributed systems are "too confusing" and "not practical" and that we shouldn't even try to avoid this future.
> We note that outside of TCP, the client-server relationship is often described using the terms “master” and “slave”. These terms more aptly describe the social roles the client-server paradigm produces.
> GNUnet is an alternative network stack for building secure, decentralized and privacy-preserving distributed applications. Our goal is to replace the old insecure Internet protocol stack.
Sounds like a PhD thesis run amok.
This just isn't going to happen. Who are they kidding? Even the transition to IPv6 is proving agonisingly slow.
GNU really need to pick their battles more wisely.
You assume GNU is a top-down organization that selects where to invest its efforts. In reality, individuals do that, only under the auspices of the GNU organization that does provide some benefits.
While some core projects are pillars of GNU and were created either to provide a fully free Unix replacement or out of one of their initiatives, many are projects offered by individuals.[0] There is no battle.
"Replace" doesn't mean global domination. It means that those who chose to use the replacement can do so, just as those who chose to use the GNU operating system as a replacement can do so.
[+] [-] openfuture|8 years ago|reply
IPFS, GNUnet, Zeronet, freenet or even something like i2p, tor and urbit .. as well as probably others.
Actually I know this question is asked all the time and I do know how these differ, to some extent at least, but I just don't understand why there are all these competing standards since it's all driven by the same-ish vision.
Whenever someone accomplishes this vision though it'll be a huge game changer. IPFS feels closest to it as of now .
[+] [-] _3x96|8 years ago|reply
ipfs and zeronet (and dat project) are distributed file stores (think bittorrent), some have some special browsers n top that let you build applications
freenet is a distributed, secure content network.
i2p and tor are secure overlay neworks - run on top of the existing internet to provide secure connectivity - designed to obscure where traffic is going to and from.
gnunet and cjdns are also secure overlay networks but more like point to point vpns.
[+] [-] ezdiy|8 years ago|reply
I'm rather skeptic. IMO, IPFS is just overengineered bittorrent. At the lowest layer, the semantics are the same, except with really bad ideas thrown into the mix - wantlist instead of bitmaps, forcing DAG in places where there's no use for it, all driving overall performance of the network into the ground.
[+] [-] jancsika|8 years ago|reply
Suppose I want to download a tarball of the GNUnet file sharing application. (I chose file downloading because the GNUnet Wikipedia page says file sharing is the primary application atm.)
What are the steps I need to follow in order to fire up GNUnet's filesharing application and download that file?
To whomever responds: you make the file available, and I'll try to download it.
Edit: it doesn't have to be a tarball of the app. It can be any file which I can find a hash for on clearnet. But somebody has to vouch that they are making it available over GNUnet while I try to download it.
[+] [-] larrydag|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Slackwise|8 years ago|reply
Then when we've all sunk into all these convenient cloud services and "easy to use" disposable devices, we'll have lost all of our privacy and power. The corporations will get regulated, and then the government will have access and control of the systems.
And yet we'll have people argue that these open source and federated/distributed systems are "too confusing" and "not practical" and that we shouldn't even try to avoid this future.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] UncleEntity|8 years ago|reply
Best quote I've seen in a while...
[+] [-] mynewtb|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MaxBarraclough|8 years ago|reply
Sounds like a PhD thesis run amok.
This just isn't going to happen. Who are they kidding? Even the transition to IPv6 is proving agonisingly slow.
GNU really need to pick their battles more wisely.
[+] [-] norswap|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonkostempski|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikegerwitz|8 years ago|reply
"Replace" doesn't mean global domination. It means that those who chose to use the replacement can do so, just as those who chose to use the GNU operating system as a replacement can do so.
[0]: https://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.en.html
[+] [-] co0nsta|8 years ago|reply