A long long time ago, in this very same room, I had an interface to FMS in Freenet running.

I dropped that early on as there were some issues with duplicate messages, FMS account creation, and lack of interest.

I'm again considering it as now the rslight news server operates in a way that can remove the duplicate message issue easily, and I've come up with some reasonably simple ideas to handle posts working more quickly.

It may be a while, but I do plan to try this again with rslight. The main decision point right now is whether to tie in with the current (main) FMS group root (or whatever it's called), or just create a new one. If I create a new one, a modified FMS will be necessary to read/post from Freenet, so I'm really trying to avoid doing that. The only reason I'm considering it is that some of the users on FMS most likely will complain loudly if I start intruding. It wouldn't be intruding, but some users there seem to want to make sure Freenet never grows into anything, and they are doing a good job of that.

We'll see, but I do plan to move forward with this project again. The idea that you could read/post Rocksolid from Freenet is appealing.

Retro Guy

--
Posted on: Rocksolid Light
news.novabbs.com

The idea that you could read/post Rocksolid from Freenet is appealing.

From a technical point of view I'd agree 100%.
From a user/potential point of view: hmmmm....think freenet has only little more users than rocksolid does.

What's really cool for me with this setup is i2p, tor and freenet together in one place, though. So my advice: go for it.  :-)

cheers

trw
--
Posted on def2
z5bqfv5v75kxy7pj.onion

anonymous wrote:

The idea that you could read/post Rocksolid from Freenet is appealing.

From a technical point of view I'd agree 100%.
From a user/potential point of view: hmmmm....think freenet has only little more users than rocksolid does.

What's really cool for me with this setup is i2p, tor and freenet together in one place, though.

So my advice: go for it.  :-)

It looks like we have the same opinion. Nobody will use it, but it's cool anyway :)

When I get some time I'll probably try to tie rocksolid.shared.test into FMS and see how it works. I already know it works, I've done it before, but I have plans to modify headers going to FMS to use a selection of already announced usernames, and attach the actual user name into the post.

This won't be soon, but it's on my list of things to eventually do.

Retro Guy

--
Posted on def2
def2.i2p

Retro Guy wrote:

anonymous wrote:

The idea that you could read/post Rocksolid from Freenet is appealing.

From a technical point of view I'd agree 100%.
From a user/potential point of view: hmmmm....think freenet has only little more users than rocksolid does.

What's really cool for me with this setup is i2p, tor and freenet together in one place, though.

So my advice: go for it.  :-)

It looks like we have the same opinion. Nobody will use it, but it's cool anyway :)

When I get some time I'll probably try to tie rocksolid.shared.test into FMS and see how it works. I already know it works, I've done it before, but I have plans to modify headers going to FMS to use a selection of already announced usernames, and attach the actual user name into the post.

This won't be soon, but it's on my list of things to eventually do.

Still considering this, but currently I have rslight in a feature freeze. Only addressing bugs atm, and any mods/features are being worked on in a separate branch. Since new things cause bugs, I want to work out as many as I can now without adding more. Once the most obvious bugs are worked out, then I'll consider splicing in new features for 0.6.6.

I consider things that an end user doesn't see, but I know are handled incorrectly in the code as bugs also. There's plenty of that, lol :)

Thoughts on Freenet is, how many established FMS users will I piss off? It's easy to do, I've done that simply with test messages in TEST. Too many apparently :) But if I tie into an alternative FMS (yes, FMS can be configured to use a separate whatever it's called for it's own message base), then an end user would need to configure for that. I really don't want to do that.

This is all in the not so near future.

Retro Guy



--
Posted on: Rocksolid Light
www.novabbs.com