{% extends "_layout.html" %} {% block title %}I2P Development Meeting 15{% endblock %} {% block content %}

I2P (invisiblenet) Development Meeting 15

Courtesy of the wayback machine.

--- Log opened Tue Oct 15 23:31:29 2002

23:31 < logger> test

23:32 < mason> sorry, that test did not work

23:32 < mason> :)

23:32 -!- mode/#iip-dev [+o mids] by Trent

23:32 <@mids> Tue Oct 15 21:32:19 UTC 2002

23:32 <@mids> meeting starts in 1:30 hours

--- Day changed Wed Oct 16 2002

00:44 < geully> hi all

00:50 <@mids> Public IIP meeting in 10 minutes here

00:50 < Robert> Hello all.

00:51 <@mids> shhh

00:51 <@mids> not yet

00:51 <@mids> 9 more minutes

00:51 < Grishnav> lol

00:51 < al-jabr> Tue Oct 15 22:51:23 UTC 2002

00:51 * Robert zips his lip.

00:51 < al-jabr> lalala

00:53 -!- geully is now known as Geully

01:00 <@mids> Tue Oct 15 23:00:02 UTC 2002

01:00 <@mids> welcome to the n-th public IIP meeting

01:00 <@mids> logfiles are on http://mids.student.utwente.nl/~mids/iip/

01:00 < nop> hehe

01:00 <@mids> oh, 15th

01:00 < nop> 15th

01:00 < nop> yes

01:00 <@mids> agenda for today:

01:01 <@mids> - new IIP developer

01:01 <@mids> - IIP logo contest

01:01 <@mids> - bug fixes

01:01 <@mids> - question rounds

01:01 <@mids> ,

01:01 <@mids> .

01:01 < nop> ok

01:02 < nop> welcome back all

01:02 < nop> to another round of meetings ;)

01:02 < nop> for all that work in a corporate office

01:02 < nop> you have permission to sleep

01:02 < nop> ok

01:02 < nop> new IIP developer

01:02 -!- mode/#iip-dev [+o nop] by mids

01:02 <@nop> and is a talented and quick learning C programmer

01:02 -!- mode/#iip-dev [+o UserX] by mids

01:02 <@nop> and has already added some patches and some grunt work that was needed to the code

01:03 <@mids> hurray!

01:03 <@nop> we are glad to have him

01:03 <@nop> and we feel that he will be an essential part of the team

01:03 * al-jabr claps

01:03 <@nop> ok

01:03 <@nop> next on list

01:03 <@nop> IIP logo contest

01:03 <@nop> any graphix designers etc

01:03 <@mids> graphix? you mean graphics?

01:04 < Grishnav> No, he means graphix :P

01:04 < hobbs> nop: maybe. Me or my mom. She's good, and she got a tablet recently. :)

01:04 <@nop> who would like to come up with a cool slogan and/or logo for invisiblenet, and IIP (yes I mean graphics) for t-shirts can submit their entries to iip@invisiblenet.net

01:04 <@nop> the winner

01:04 <@nop> will win a free t-shirt

01:04 <@nop> black or white

01:04 <@nop> of his choice

01:04 <@nop> or her choice

01:04 <@mids> woohoo!

01:04 <@nop> and 10.00 DRAN

01:04 < hobbs> nice.

01:05 <@nop> this can definitely include slogans as well

01:05 <@nop> so there could be two winners

01:05 <@nop> if one comes up with logo

01:05 -!- mode/#iip-dev [+o Chocolate] by mids

01:05 <@nop> and one comes up with an awesome slogan

01:05 -!- mode/#iip-dev [+o Chocolate] by Trent

01:05 <@nop> but submit to iip@invisiblenet.net

01:05 <@nop> and they will be reviewed

01:05 <@nop> I hope that if you're not a graphics guy, that you can tell a friend

01:05 <@nop> and maybe split the profits

01:05 <@nop> ;)

01:06 <@nop> because we would like to have cool shirts

01:06 <@nop> for the e-store

01:06 <@nop> and in general

01:06 <@nop> as well

01:06 <@nop> for bumper stickers etc

01:06 <@nop> maybe a mascot would be good too

01:06 <@mids> :)

01:06 <@nop> either way

01:06 <@nop> do what you can

01:06 <@nop> submit them

01:06 <@nop> and we'll decide at the end of the month

01:06 < philocs> our only mascot is satan

01:06 <@nop> well

01:06 <@nop> that's taken

01:06 <@nop> BSD

01:06 <@nop> ;)

01:07 < philocs> we could make a scarier satan

01:07 < hobbs> that's a DAEMON!

01:07 <@nop> hehe

01:07 <@Chocolate> black

01:07 <@nop> ok

01:07 <@nop> next

01:07 <@nop> bugfixes

01:07 <@Chocolate> tshirt must be black

01:07 <@nop> ok

01:07 <@nop> yeah

01:07 <@nop> all artist must make inversed drawings

01:07 <@nop> so that it caters to black or white backgrounds

01:07 <@nop> and you can use color :)

01:07 <@nop> oh

01:07 <@nop> and the winner

01:08 < nemesis> http://www.stk.com/products/50_beta/about50.cfm

01:08 <@nop> will of course get full credit by having his logo on the t-shirt

01:08 < nemesis> nice

01:08 * al-jabr fears that this T-shirt may be hopelessly dorky

01:08 <@mids> al-jabr: make a better one

01:08 <@mids> okay...

01:08 <@mids> next poing?

01:09 <@mids> point :)

01:09 <@mids> beeing: bugfixes

01:09 <@mids> UserX fixed even more bugs then reported

01:09 <@mids> there are still a few (possible) bugs out there..

01:09 <@mids> if you found some that aren't mentioned

01:09 <@mids> please tell us

01:10 < al-jabr> I personally couldn't replicate the terminal bug, unless that was something in CVS

01:10 <@mids> without bugreports we cant fix

01:10 <@nop> neither could i

01:10 <@mids> al-jabr: I have had it in the past; but couldn't repeat

01:10 <@mids> I'll ask Jeekay for more details

01:10 < philocs> where do I find list of outstanding bugs?

01:11 <@nop> well everyone is encouraged to use the sourceforge bug tracker

01:11 <@nop> but most people don't

01:11 <@nop> ;)

01:11 < philocs> bug tracker is good

01:11 <@nop> we should probably link to that on our main site

01:11 <@mids> http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/invisibleip/

01:11 <@nop> for a bug submital

01:11 < firegod> too bad it doesnt have an IRC frontend (:

01:11 <@mids> most bugs are mailed to the iip-dev mailinglist though

01:11 < philocs> ok I just subscribed yesterday

01:11 <@mids> cool

01:12 < nemesis> cause the logo, whate resolution? and dpi ?

01:13 <@nop> any one knowing graphix have a suggestion for resolution and dpi?

01:13 < firegod> start big

01:13 < firegod> it can be resized

01:13 <@nop> ok

01:13 <@nop> kewl

01:13 < firegod> down if needed

01:13 < nemesis> -e

01:13 < firegod> it is much more difficult going the other way (:

01:13 < nemesis> hehe

01:13 < nemesis> firegod

01:13 < nemesis> something

01:14 < hobbs> nop: would you be interested in having it in a vector graphics format, if that just happens to be how it's done?

01:14 < firegod> always good to have high res masters

01:14 < nemesis> 10 megapixels

01:14 <@nop> svg?

01:14 < nemesis> 72dpi

01:14 < hobbs> (not that I even own a vector program, but somebody might care)

01:14 < nemesis> or 1000 ?

01:14 < nemesis> ;)

01:14 < nemesis> very dificult

01:14 < nemesis> +f

01:15 < firegod> sure, if they are creative..

01:15 < firegod> but svg isnt widly used just yet

01:15 < al-jabr> Question: I'm patching IIP to use /dev/random. Would you be interested in incorporating this? I'm doing it #ifdef linux for until I or someone configurifies the source.

01:15 < firegod> so standard raster formats would be more usable atm

01:15 < firegod> al-jabr: finish the patch and submit it to the mailing list

01:15 <@nop> al-jar

01:15 < al-jabr> okay

01:15 < hobbs> al-jabr: I'd suggest making it #ifdef SOME_FLAG_THAT_CAN_GO_IN_MAKEFILE

01:15 < al-jabr> yeah

01:16 < al-jabr> will do

01:16 < hobbs> (and have a well-commented DFLAGS line in Makefile)

01:16 <@nop> yarrow is a very good prng

01:16 <@nop> it's known to be secure

01:16 <@nop> and we have done a test with our randomness via chi-square

01:16 < al-jabr> nop: I believe yarrow would be redundard when we have /dev/urandom

01:16 <@nop> and it got 25% which is good

01:16 <@nop> yes, but yarrow is portable

01:16 <@nop> and known to be stronger

01:16 <@mids> al-jabr: the problem is that not all operating systems have a good implementation for /dev/random

01:16 < firegod> not at all

01:17 <@nop> I would rather rely on what a cryptography expert developed

01:17 <@nop> then the /dev/random on the machines

01:17 < hobbs> true. A -DUSE_DEV_RANDOM might end up being useful, or it might just hurt a lot of people who don't know what they're doing.

01:17 <@mids> otoh, giving the more modular future of IIP, maybe several alternatives could be an option

01:17 < hobbs> and not the best odds on the first. :)

01:17 <@nop> yes

01:17 <@nop> and we do plan to add more entropy in the future

01:18 < al-jabr> Well, linux /dev/random and /dev/urandom are some of the most scrutinized crypto out there... I'm mostly thinking of that because it's a very good entropy pool that's out there on very many machines running IIP

01:18 <@nop> to increase this

01:18 < firegod> general question: with iip2 are we going to have more feedback from the proxy?

01:18 < al-jabr> you wouldn't have to go querying the user for entropy.

01:18 <@nop> yes firegod

01:18 <@nop> well you usually don't

01:18 <@nop> but it's definitely added plus

01:18 <@nop> if there isn't enough

01:18 <@nop> it will query

01:19 <@nop> and we will probably look into adding a form of /dev/random entropy very soon

01:19 < hobbs> does linux /dev/random support O_NONBLOCK ?

01:19 <@nop> because we intend on really strengthening the pool

01:19 <@nop> I'm sure it does hobbs

01:19 <@nop> /dev/random let's you select your pool size

01:19 < hobbs> nop: yeah, but there's a softlimit, and a hardlimit in the kernel, and the hardlimit isn't that big.

01:19 <@nop> al-jabr it would be best to hold off

01:19 < al-jabr> nop: personally I'd trust linux more, which uses SHA1 and uses all kinds of hardware sources of entropy, than a newbie who might just go entering 'aaaaaaaaaa...' but anyway it's only an option

01:20 <@nop> al-jabr

01:20 < al-jabr> ok

01:20 <@nop> thats not all the entropy

01:20 <@nop> there is more

01:20 <@nop> there are network timings, and dh calculation timings as well

01:20 < al-jabr> but it only has access to user-mode entropy

01:20 <@nop> and we plan to add more

01:20 < al-jabr> why reinvent the wheel. i recommend using /dev/random and for those who don't have it, EGD.

01:20 <@mids> nop: would it harm to give al-jabr a try, and maybe use it as plugin for entropy?

01:20 < al-jabr> since the GPG and linux people are doing it

01:21 <@mids> nop: alww

01:21 < al-jabr> why don't we concentrate on doing what we do best?

01:21 <@nop> that's fine

01:21 <@mids> nop: always good to have alternatives around

01:21 <@nop> if you want to submit a patch

01:21 <@nop> please do

01:21 <@nop> I'm not against it

01:21 <@nop> and we definitely want to add more entropy

01:21 < philocs> is the darwin /dev/random good? is it the same one in linux or openbsd?

01:21 <@nop> so please submit it to iip-dev when you've added it

01:21 < firegod> thats what mailing lists are for, people can digest it better

01:22 < al-jabr> okay, will do.

01:22 <@nop> thnx

01:22 <@nop> is that all?

01:22 <@nop> no more questions?

01:22 <@mids> hehe

01:22 <@nop> or suggestions

01:22 <@nop> or complaints

01:22 < nemesis> hm..

01:22 < philocs> I have a dumb newbie question ...

01:22 <@nop> sure

01:22 < firegod> well. release dates?

01:22 < nemesis> cache in the nodes

01:22 <@mids> sjoet

01:22 <@nop> oh oh on

01:22 <@nop> that wasn't on the list

01:22 <@nop> but

01:23 <@nop> we are at this time working on a short term todo list

01:23 <@nop> that will be publicized

01:23 < philocs> if someone hacks a relay to log, does that mean they can see the trafic for private channels that go through it?

01:23 <@nop> no

01:23 <@mids> philocs: all traffic is encrypted node-node and end-end

01:23 < philocs> ok, so you can only get the cleartext at the server, right?

01:23 < firegod> but not contextually withing IRC

01:23 <@nop> right

01:24 < firegod> right

01:24 < firegod> and the client

01:24 <@mids> philocs: correct

01:24 <@nop> yes

01:24 < philocs> good

01:24 < firegod> how far are you from encrypted channels?

01:24 < hobbs> and the client -- well, can only see stuff that's actually sent to it.

01:24 <@mids> firegod: nop is working on a roadmap and syncing it with the developers (if I understood well)

01:24 < nemesis> add an multicast option for filetransfers, when one user, will send the same file to some multiple clients

01:24 < hobbs> which means, if you don't even know that a channel exists, then you can't (intentionally or accidentally) snoop it.

01:24 <@nop> firegod it will be done when we decentralize

01:24 <@nop> which is our next goal

01:25 <@nop> after 1.1 stable

01:25 < nemesis> that the nodes between the nodes cache it

01:25 < firegod> okay. roadmap.

01:25 < hobbs> nemesis: actually.... that's worth thinking about -- talk to chocolate. :)

01:25 < philocs> is there an advantage to having "channel key encryption" before decentralization?

01:25 <@mids> nemesis: well, filetransfer isnt implemented in IIP itself anyway

01:25 < nemesis> lol

01:25 < firegod> hobbs: well, knowing about a channel is easy

01:25 <@mids> nemesis: it CAN do multicast, just send it to a channel :)

01:25 < hobbs> nemesis: it should be possible to add a hack to fileserv to have it use a channel, and then anyone who wants to receive just joins. :)

01:25 < hobbs> firegod: oh, is it?

01:25 < nemesis> what can you do with an anonymous network

01:26 < nemesis> when you can share code?

01:26 < nemesis> whats about some c code?

01:26 < firegod> multicast is a problem due to not spectacular widespread support..

01:26 <@mids> philocs: yes, I'd think so... less trust needed on the server

01:26 < nemesis> when the complet internet are banned for open source?

01:26 < hobbs> firegod: not multicast IP, just "multicast" :)

01:26 < firegod> hobbs: re fileserv channel: that gives you encrypted channels btw (:

01:26 < nemesis> how you can share this information?

01:26 < hobbs> firegod: oh, how's that?

01:27 < nemesis> <hobbs> nemesis: it should be possible to add a hack to fileserv to have it use a channel, and then anyone who wants to receive just joins. :)

01:27 < firegod> hobbs: sure, if you join IIP at all it is simple to /list the channels

01:27 < nemesis> not a hack

01:27 < philocs> I might start thinking about some 'channel key encryption'. it doesn't seem like it would be terribly complicated thing to me, just keep private keys in some directory maybe

01:27 < nemesis> built in

01:27 < nemesis> and an "server node" option

01:27 < nemesis> to allow that

01:27 < nemesis> or not

01:27 <@mids> philocs: you could implement it client side...

01:27 < hobbs> nemesis: okay, I'm just behind the times. I haven't worked on fileserv for... months

01:27 < nemesis> and an option for the cache size for it

01:27 <@mids> philocs: look at the blowfish.pl scripts for irssi and xchat

01:27 < firegod> philocs: and perl plugins on clients

01:27 <@mids> s/blowfish/blowjob/

01:28 < philocs> mids: would it make sense to implement it in the client side of isproxy?

01:28 <@mids> nemesis: caching wouldnt make much sense when everything goes still through the central ircd

01:28 < philocs> that way it would work with all clients

01:28 < nemesis> <mids> nemesis: caching wouldnt make much sense when everything goes still through the central ircd

01:28 <@mids> philocs: maybe; but that would require the 'vircd'

01:28 < nemesis> i think there are planned to be an p2p network?

01:28 < nemesis> and then theres no central hub

01:28 <@mids> nemesis: for IIP 2

01:29 < nemesis> only some nodes

01:29 < nemesis> where cache the datas

01:29 <@mids> nemesis: but that is long term; first IIP 1.2

01:29 < philocs> nemesis: I think you want freenet maybe

01:29 < nemesis> no

01:29 < philocs> p2p file transfers with caching

01:29 < nemesis> only an option to share some public files

01:29 < nemesis> or larger text

01:29 < philocs> thats what freenet does

01:29 < firegod> any merging of namespace possible between freenet and iip?

01:29 < nemesis> that you don'*t copy it line for line in the channel /query

01:29 < hobbs> what sits on top of the IIPv2 network could be a lot of interesting things -- but that's a while off. :)

01:29 <@mids> nemesis: first we would need decentralized routing...

01:30 < nemesis> k

01:30 < firegod> every isproxy was a freenet node?

01:30 < nemesis> but don't forget it ;)

01:30 < philocs> I don't think it makes sense to cannabalize freenet ...

01:30 <@mids> nemesis: once we have that; ask again :)

01:30 < firegod> philocs: does it do the job?

01:30 < nemesis> lol

01:30 <@mids> philocs: giving recent freenet-shit; I'd say no, indeed it doesn't

01:30 < firegod> philocs: and I like 'incorporate' a bit better

01:30 < hobbs> it should be possible to write a mini-freenet on top of IIP... but it would be better to leave freenet at what it does, and take advantage of the high speed and "pushiness" of IIP to write even better things.

01:30 < nemesis> in how many years? *fg*

01:31 < firegod> alright (:

01:31 < firegod> people do want to exchange chunks of binary data thru their messaging clients, in this case IIP

01:31 < firegod> how will that be addressed?

01:31 < philocs> firegod: well, I think it does the job well, and it will only get better. yes I agree that it would be better to have iip implement the freenet protocol for freenet type things rather than make something incompatible

01:31 < hobbs> for example, IIPv2 should be able to support the niftiest "anonymail" anyone's ever seen (without a bot), unless I'm hallucinating. :)

01:31 < nemesis> hm..

01:32 < nemesis> hacker ethic

01:32 < nemesis> the slogon

01:32 < nemesis> for..

01:32 < nemesis> miiiids!!

01:32 <@mids> hobbs: IIPv2 will be so smart that it could do your math homework

01:32 < hobbs> that's good, 'cause I don't do mine often enough.

01:32 < philocs> speaking of which

01:33 <@UserX> firegod: the intention is to do a DCC emulation using Freenet as the transport for files

01:33 < Grishnav> Sorry if this has already been suggested, I've missed much of the conversation being in and out of the room, but how about some sort of API for IIP to create modules? After IIP gets completely distributed (with v2) you could have all sorts of interesting modules pop up... a file transfer mod, perhaps a freenet node mod if you only wanted one service running...

01:33 < firegod> UserX: that'll work (:

01:33 < philocs> UserX: I think that is the best solution

01:33 < hobbs> Grishnav: that's more or less the plan, as I understand it. And if it's not, we'll beat nop with halibut until it is.

01:33 < Grishnav> lol

01:34 < firegod> UserX: but if IIPv2 is decenteralized, would this dcc emulation need freenet? you already can do point multipoint point transfers, you just need a session handshake for that kind of transfer

01:34 < firegod> albiet dcc

01:34 < nemesis> waaaaaaaaaah

01:34 < philocs> plus if every iip user was running some sort of freenet implementation, that would make freenet much better

01:34 < nemesis> ardvark

01:34 < nemesis> grrrrrr

01:34 < nemesis> where is he?

01:34 < nemesis> where can speak german?

01:34 < hobbs> also, it should be (more) convenient to have multiple IIPv2 networks, but I think that's a given. :)

01:34 < nemesis> or known only a little bit german

01:34 < firegod> philocs: thats what I'm saying (:

01:34 < nemesis> and have the english hacker ethic?

01:34 < firegod> whos working on IIPv2?

01:35 < philocs> I need to go study for my german test soon

01:35 < philocs> firegod: are you left handed or in oz or something?

01:35 <@mids> hm, ppl; I got to go; keep chatting here

01:35 <@mids> bbl

01:35 < nemesis> hrhr

01:35 < nemesis> mids!!!

01:35 < firegod> philocs: nope, just a freak

01:35 < nemesis> don't drunk to much ;p

01:35 < nemesis> *fg*

01:36 < firegod> mids is working on IIPv2 I'm sure, anyone else? UserX?

01:36 < nemesis> nop

01:36 <@UserX> firegod: in theory yes. but currently we want to keep IIP low bandwidth. freenet would me suited transfering large volumes of data (and better because it doesn't have a constraint of realtime routing that IIP needs)

01:36 < nemesis> i think

01:36 <@nop> yes

01:36 < nemesis> aaaaaah

01:36 < nemesis> nop

01:36 < philocs> I guess what is really needed is for someone to write a C implementation of freenet ...

01:36 < firegod> UserX: this is true.

01:37 < firegod> UserX: or at least an opt-in on that feature

01:37 <@UserX> firegod: yes i am working v2

01:37 < hobbs> philocs: I agreed with that pretty heavily a few months ago, but right now I'm happy to let java fred do its thing, and settle down, before anyone clones.

01:37 < hobbs> (now that it _works_, that is)

01:37 < firegod> UserX: how have you solved scaling issues for resource location? ie: how do you find nodes originating #channels?

01:37 < philocs> UserX: yes well thats a good reason to not make it easy for people to do 'dcc' and to encourage them to use freenet

01:38 < firegod> philocs: it should just be opt-in.. people wanting to abuse their bandwidth, can go right ahead.. those on modems dont get killed (:

01:38 < hobbs> UserX: would be nice to keep in mind, though, that freenet is good at pulling things, and iip is good at pushing things. :)

01:38 < philocs> hobbs: well I agree, I think the java version is fine but if we are going to basically package freenet with iip somehow then eventually (and probably when freenet hits 1.0?) we will want a c implementation

01:38 < firegod> philocs: those wanting freenet backed features, change a setting and BLAM it just works

01:38 <@UserX> firegod: haven't worked out highly scalable system yet

01:39 < firegod> hobbs: IIP is a great way of grouping freenet keys (:

01:39 < hobbs> philocs: that's some pretty long thinking. :)

01:39 < firegod> UserX: ah. If you havnt peaked at Circle, I encourage you to (:

01:39 < firegod> I know mids said he'd played with it

01:39 < philocs> hobbs: well freenet is getting more stable all the time

01:40 < youkai> yeah, i would never run freenet as long as its only java

01:40 < firegod> theres a slogan for ya d-:

01:40 < firegod> "getting more stable every day"

01:40 < youkai> too bulky

01:41 < philocs> youkai: its not too bad

01:41 < youkai> plus i think its shitty to have os software that only compiles on a corp owned language

01:41 < Grishnav> I don't like Java anymore than the next guy, but I certainly am a freenet fan. I'll use the java one, but only until I hear about a C implementation. :)

01:42 < youkai> i mean if you guys were using the os non sun java i wouldent mind as much

01:42 < youkai> ah yes

01:42 < youkai> blackdown

01:42 < hobbs> youkai: freenet works fine on a few flavors of non-sun java.

01:42 < hobbs> blackdown has sun behind it.

01:42 < youkai> you just cant win with java then :/

01:42 < firegod> so?

01:42 < youkai> i dont trust sun any more then i do microsoft

01:43 < firegod> java is not your friend (:

01:43 < Grishnav> Does anyone have a link to the souce download for Blackdown? (Their site is less than helpful)

01:43 < firegod> I encourage those who are disatisfied with java, to try phthon for their scripting needs (it is NOT java)

01:43 < youkai> yeah python is cool

01:44 < youkai> but i dident stop running m$ operating systems just so i could let another corp in the door (sun)

01:44 < hobbs> Grishnav: er. It's in "non-free" for a reason, isn't it?

01:44 < philocs> you are wanting me to write freenet in python? would a python module be distributed with iip?

01:44 < Grishnav> Ahh... I was under the impression is was free. my mistake.

01:45 < youkai> thats the only problem i have with freenet

01:45 < philocs> java is not evil, sun treats java differently than MS treats windows

01:45 < hobbs> Grishnav: no. If you ask sun, it's impossible to create a free java2 implementation, and they've done a good job of making it true.

01:45 < youkai> i mean java is a lot easier to code in because you dont have to worry about memory leaks and stuff as much

01:45 < Grishnav> rofl

01:45 < youkai> the garbage collector lets you be lazy

01:45 < philocs> hobbs: why is it impossible?

01:45 < Grishnav> [16:45] <youkai> i mean java is a lot easier to code in because you dont have to worry about memory leaks and stuff as much -- yeah, it's no wonder that all java apps are so goddamn memory hoggy!!

01:46 < youkai> yeah thats because they need the whole jre loaded in memory with the software

01:46 < hobbs> philocs: because if you write anything that's java2, and claims to be "java", then sun will destroy you. :)

01:46 < philocs> hobbs: yes but you can make java, just don't call it 'java'

01:46 < hobbs> er... without obtaining the appropriate license and signing the appropriate agreements first, that is. :)

01:46 < Grishnav> call it coffee

01:46 < philocs> kaffe

01:46 < Grishnav> hehe

01:46 < Grishnav> yeah

01:47 < Grishnav> I've played with Kaffe

01:47 < hobbs> philocs: true. But nobody's done it.

01:47 < Grishnav> not quite mature enough yet, but getting there

01:47 < philocs> hobbs: uh yes, the FSF has done it

01:47 < hobbs> philocs: oh?

01:47 < philocs> yes

01:47 < youkai> but seriously i think java is right up there with VB

01:47 < philocs> Kaffe

01:47 < hobbs> philocs: Kaffe is not java2.

01:47 < youkai> its for lazy programmers

01:47 < youkai> who dont mind being owned by a corp

01:47 < philocs> hobbs: but there is no reason it could not implement java2

01:47 < hobbs> philocs: except for the fact that it doesn't.

01:47 < philocs> plus gccj or whatever its called

01:48 < hobbs> er...

01:48 < youkai> the other thing is java2 is huge, and they have a gigantic team of programmers working on it all the time

01:48 < hobbs> yeah. gcj/gij are also nice.

01:48 < firegod> not to interupt, but java wars work out better in apropriatly named channels (:

01:48 < philocs> hobbs: but its not a legal issue, the java spec is an open standard, the java name is not

01:48 < youkai> gcj?

01:48 < philocs> youkai: gcc that compiles java code

01:48 < youkai> huh

01:49 < youkai> to binary or does it still need a jre

01:49 < philocs> binary I believe

01:49 < hobbs> philocs: that's a pretty heavy restriction, though.

01:49 < hobbs> You can't say: this is java, this is compatible with java, or this smells like java.

01:49 < philocs> hobbs: well I don't think so. You can make the claim that 'this software is not java, but you will probably find that it works the same'

01:50 < philocs> which most people would understand

01:50 < hobbs> probably.

01:50 < youkai> anyway, why rewrite java when you could just use c++

01:50 < youkai> its almost the same language

01:51 < philocs> arg, I would rather use java over c++

01:51 < philocs> but I'm not getting into that

01:51 < philocs> anyway, I forgot where this horrible diatribe started

01:51 < hobbs> youkai: not really. c++ doesn't force you to use OO crap when it's completely inappropriate, like java does. :)

01:51 < firegod> round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows

01:51 < firegod> philocs: exactly

01:51 < philocs> ok, so in isproxy, is there like a client side and a node side?

01:52 < firegod> philocs: you know how many times I've seen this exact same 'argument' ? (:

01:52 < youkai> hobbs: hah

01:52 < firegod> philocs: there are relays, and proxys and 'servers'

01:52 < firegod> as I see it

01:52 <@UserX> philocs: can you clarify your question?

01:52 < philocs> I mean, would it make sense to put channel key encryption in isproxy, the part that actually talks to the irc client on 6667?

01:52 < hobbs> philocs: sorta. there are nodes, and there are nodes. :)

01:52 < firegod> philocs: dont forget you have multiple clients for each isproxy

01:53 < hobbs> and nodes 1) talk to clients 2) talk to nodes 3) (one of them) talks to the server.

01:53 < philocs> firegod: really? I've never been able to see this behavior, actually maybe its just my configuration

01:53 < firegod> (:

01:54 < philocs> but anyway, does my question make sense?

01:54 < youkai> i just came here to beg you guys not to write the next ver of iip in java :D

01:54 < firegod> which question d-:

01:54 < firegod> youkai: i think thats a given

01:54 <@UserX> philocs: currently IIP 1.x is essentially a tunnel. having the client implement channel encryption would require a lot of work to do. and would become redunant when v2 gets done

01:54 < youkai> also if theres freenet people around, a c++ ver would be nice

01:55 < firegod> UserX: how about isproxy functioning as an http tunnel?

01:55 < firegod> UserX: IIPv2 as well?

01:55 < nemesis> <youkai> i just came here to beg you guys not to write the next ver of iip in java :D

01:55 < nemesis> noooooo

01:56 < philocs> I'm thinking that you could have it so that there ways like a 'keys/' directory and then you could have in that 'channel.key' or something and then just run blowfish or whatever on what goes in and out of that channel, understand?

01:56 < nemesis> native code are the best thing

01:56 < philocs> and fuck c++, I'll take java over c++ anyday

01:56 < philocs> but I also think that c is nice

01:57 <@UserX> firegod: 1.x could be used to tunnel to a single fixed HTTP server

01:57 < firegod> okay, enough language wars please?

01:57 < nemesis> m$ sponsored his .net campain, and will place his IL on the front

01:57 < youkai> k :D

01:57 < firegod> User: hrmm

01:57 < nemesis> you can controll the compiller

01:57 < philocs> youkai keeps brining it up, if he likes c++ so much, he should marry it

01:57 < nemesis> thats the different

01:57 < firegod> oh jebus

01:57 < youkai> heh philocs: if you like java so much you should go work for sun

01:57 < nemesis> can't

01:58 < philocs> UserX: would that make sense or is it better to wait for next version to do that?

02:00 < youkai> UserX: thats a good idea

02:00 <@UserX> philocs: to do that with 1.x network would require giving nodes the intelligence to read and parse recompose IRC client messages/commands

02:01 < philocs> oh I see

02:01 < nemesis> <UserX> philocs: to do that with 1.x network would require giving nodes the intelligence to read and parse recompose IRC client messages/commands

02:01 < nemesis> xml ;)

02:01 <@UserX> it's possible but would take a fair amount of effort which i want to put into v2

02:01 < nemesis> very flexible

02:01 < philocs> I understand

02:02 < philocs> later

02:11 < logger> logging ended

--- Log closed Wed Oct 16 02:11:14 2002

{% endblock %}