GNUnet 0.10.0 released

https://gnunet.org/gnunet0-10-0

by bratao • 13 years ago

109 28 13 years ago

gnunet.org

bane• 13 years ago

"GNUnet used RSA 2048 since its inception in 2001, but as of GNUnet 0.10.0, we are "powered by Curve25519"

anything to do with recent RSA news?

tptacek2• 13 years ago

What recent RSA news? The Reuters thing? RSA-the-algorithm has nothing whatsoever to do with RSA-the-company.

(It is good that they are moving away from RSA; new systems should stop using RSA.)

NkVczPkybiXICG• 13 years ago

Why should new systems avoid RSA?

rb2k_• 13 years ago

I always think it's a shame that they don't release binaries. Yeah sure, it technically "works on GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, OS X and W32", but without binaries, they'll barely get more than a few users. I really like that they continue to improve the technological underpinnings of the software, but there's a reason a lot of people use the tor network. There is a bundle that they can just download, start and it helps them connect.

I guess they DO see themselves as a "framework", but there is a GTK UI and there is a "regular" filesharing component to it

Ihmahr• 13 years ago

Also notice how bitcoin and litecoin were introduced with a great gui. They sure picked up.

bratao• 13 years ago

Mac and W32 installers are coming soon.

jordigh2• 13 years ago

Releasing binaries is a lot more work. You can tell other people to do the work, sure, but this telling is unlikely to accomplish more than some doing.

Consider making a donation towards binaries, perhaps of build servers or Windows licenses so that this can be done. GNU projects are funded by the FSF, so a donation to the FSF along with a request for binaries carries a lot of weight.

Of course, the most weight is carried by a code contribution. Help GNUnet make those binaries!

ryan-thompson3• 13 years ago

Can you GNU guys maybe stop putting GNU in front of everything? It's stupid. It makes me want to avoid these products. The message it sends is that the licence is more important than the product.

jordigh2• 13 years ago

The license is a tool. The importance is the freedom. We work on a branding, the GNU brand.

oakwhiz• 13 years ago

Sometimes the license is more important than the product.

ryan-thompson3• 13 years ago

The licence may be more important a product, but the licence attached to a product is not more important than the product.

elehack• 13 years ago

GNU License ≠ GNU Project. Yes, (almost) all GNU software (as in projects of the GNU Project) are released under the GPL. So is a lot of other software.

GNU Foo is, branding-wise, just like Microsoft Word, Google Drive, or Apple Macintosh.

ryan-thompson3• 13 years ago

Okay, so brand fail. I've using linux since my first lead dev introduced me to it back in '97-98, and it used to take a weekend to get set up right, and the only help on the newsgroups or BBS's was to RTFM. So maybe the brand could work for others, but I have not seen any really positive images of the brand. Ugly Gnu ink mascot, Restrictive GPL Licence that is less about sharing and more about control, Richard Stallman unable to give it a rest. The brand isn't a good one.

synchronise• 13 years ago

I wonder when GNUnet and GNU Social will be eventually combined.

mattl• 13 years ago

I don't think they will. I would like to see work in making GNU social work over GNUnet though.

If anything, GNU FM and GNU social will work better together.

xmrsilentx2• 13 years ago

GNUsenet seems like a more appropriate name.

killnine• 13 years ago

Zero dot tEn dott zero..?

comex2• 13 years ago

I wonder whether they would consider replacing GNS (GNU Name System, DNS substitute, decentralized using a chain of trust model but without globally unique names) with Namecoin (uses a blockchain to enforce a registration fee). The latter isn't perfect, but it's probably better, and I wish it had more uptake in general.

pseudonymous123• 13 years ago

I think that's unfeasible. Namecoin requires everyone to have a copy of all domain names AFAIK. It will just grow to the point of being useless if it becomes popular. If it becomes too big, you have to trust a small number of nodes to run a full instance and give you correct results. That's about as good as the current PKI/DNS system anyway.

kordless2• 13 years ago

There are Bitcoin wallet implementations that don't require the full block chain. I suspect a lightweight version of Namecoin is also possible.

comex2• 13 years ago

Even if you do have to use a server, it's a lot better to be able to choose to trust anyone with a terabyte hard disk (with about 150 million current domains according to whois.sc, that sounds like enough even if it gets very popular) to not return incorrect data for a fundamentally decentralized store than to trust each of a large group of entities (CAs) to uphold a system whose canonical source (DNS) is subject to censorship anyway.

kolev• 13 years ago

Sorry, but Namecoin is a scamcoin! DNS works on low-end computers, Namecoin is an overkill requiring vast storage and constant syncing - you can recall what happened a month ago when Coinbase went out of sync with the blockchain and were pretty much offline of hours. Using the blockchain for absolutely everything is an abuse! DNSSEC + DNSCrypt are pretty fine for me! Plus, being a scamcoin makes .bit domains pretty expensive - right now it's $14/yeah - way more than a way more useful .com!

GNUnet 0.10.0 released

Related Stories