Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The GNUnet System

gnunet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: The GNUnet System

#11

Post by mxuribe »

_3x96 wrote: post #10
openfuture wrote: post #6

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 accompli…

super tldr... 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 over…

This is quite a helpful tldr! Thanks!!

Re: The GNUnet System

#12

Post by openfuture »

_3x96 wrote: post #10
openfuture wrote: post #6

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 accompli…

super tldr... 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 over…

Thanks for mentioning 'Dat Project', hadn't heard of it before. Do you know if any of these distributed file stores are making use of this[1] result like Pijul?

It'd be amazing if these projects converge on making version control, package management and any sort of information distribution (internet) into the same thing. Currently it feels like they are all working in separate corners on what they consider to be 'the abstraction that will eat the world' so to speak..

[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.3903

Re: The GNUnet System

#13

Post by mikegerwitz »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #2

> 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.

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.

[0]: https://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.en.html

Re: The GNUnet System

#14

Post by mikegerwitz »

JasonFruit wrote: post #9
norswap wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What _are_ the benefits, other than you get to say you're a GNU project and surrounded by Saint IGNUcius's halo?

Contributing to the GNU Project and having your project associated with certain principles. Some people just want to make GNU stronger or send a message about software freedom.

Re: The GNUnet System

#15

Post by oelmekki »

pksadiq wrote: post #7
jasonkostempski wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choosing file transfer as the first goal seems like a great decesion to me. File sharers are willing to adopt anything.

> Choosing file transfer as the first goal seems like a great decesion to me. True. We still don't have a good way of doing this[0]. [0] https://xkcd.com/949/

Actually, there is: if both users are on gmail, you can attach big files to your mail, and it's automatically uploaded on Drive (and retrieved seamlessly by recipient from mail). If recipient is not using gmail, you can still use Drive to upload your file and share it. And obviously, there are many Drive competitors, like dropbox and Box, to name the biggest ones.

Re: The GNUnet System

#16

Post by UncleEntity »

_3x96 wrote: post #10
openfuture wrote: post #6

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 accompli…

super tldr... 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 over…

I'm actually reading the paper...

> GNUnet is an overlay network, as it is initially supposed to primarily operate over the existing Internet network. However, GNUnet does not assume that this is always the case. For example, GNUnet can also operate directly over WLAN or Bluetooth to create an ad-hoc wireless mesh network, and with the GNUnet “PT/VPN” subsystems we can run TCP/IP over GNUnet. So in this configuration, GNUnet would be an underlay network, a bit like MPLS or B.A.T.M.A.N. [NAL07]. In reality, we in fact expect to see both at the same time: some peers will run over the existing Internet, while others may connect to GNUnet on Layer 2.

Re: The GNUnet System

#17

Post by jnagro »

UncleEntity wrote: post #16
_3x96 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

super tldr... 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 over…

I'm actually reading the paper... > GNUnet is an overlay network, as it is initially supposed to primarily operate over the existing Internet network. However, GNUnet does not assume that this is always the case. For example, GNUnet can also operate directly over WLAN or Bluetooth to create an ad-hoc wireless mesh network, and with the GNUnet “PT/VPN” subsystems we can run TCP/IP over GNUnet. So in this configuration…

ah yeah, youre right. cjdns has that too, you can build mesh networks with it:

https://tomesh.net/build-a-node/

Re: The GNUnet System

#19

Post by mynewtb »

UncleEntity wrote: post #8

> 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. Best quote I've seen in a while...

But but but racism, you insensitive brute! https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692
Post reply on HN