On Fri, 24 Mar, 2006 at 05:53PM -0500, Dana Olson spake thus: > On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 22:34 +0000, james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Mar, 2006 at 09:50PM +0000, carmen spake thus: > > > On Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 04:09:00PM -0500, lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > bittorrent has command line clients. The bittorrent package in debian comes with two. > > > > > > BT is mainly designed for a few large files with brief initial bursts of popularity to sustain the distribution model..a few gigs of SXSW trailers, pirated movies, DVD ISO's or what not > > > > > > for a bunch of more obscure files (drum hits created with Smack, ZynnAddSub patches, asound.conf's), something like eMule works much better. i think we probably want something like that, only more minimal, and without all the warez. i think there should be a requirement for the network, Public Domain, CC, GPL/BSD/MIT licensed content only, or at least make it glaringly obvious if it isnt. > > > > > > has anyone investigated coral? it looks like some kind of public free distributed akamai.. > > > > > > W.A.S.T.E. is an egregious waste of bandwidth, and i dont see it in portage anyway. what about freenet, anyone used that? > > > > > > i think a web interface would be best for categorization, commenting, forking, user-submitted revisions etc..then point to the actual content on freenet or coral (unless that rumour about paul's 1.8 TB of disk space and bandwidth just sitting idle is true..) > > > > The Circle (http://thecircle.org.au/) looks good. > > > > One file to download and go. Also has instant messaging and IRC style > > comms. > > > > We could have our own little network pretty quickly, methinks. > > > > Done properly, we could get a lot from something like this. > > > > James > > > There's another option, part of the GNU project: http://gnunet.org/ > I don't know about other distros, but it is in debian for sure, adding > to convenience. > > I've never heard of Coral or The Circle before. And Freenet.. I looked > at it before, and it seems kinda complex just to share some > music-related files. > > I think that whatever we choose, it should be easy for most users to get > it installed. There are a lot of people who just want to use their PC > and the applications there, and don't want to have to download seven > libraries and compile everything from souce. Maybe no one on this list > minds, but we would really limit the possibilites to restrict it to just > us. Just my 2 cents.. > > If I had the bandwidth and disk space (or money to fund it), I'd prefer > a website for all this stuff, including hosting of the files. It'd be a > lot more convenient - if James is offline, and he is the only one who is > still sharing MetallicDrumBeats.tar.bz2 which I wanna get, then I'm out > of luck. If it's on a website, then yay, I can download it. > > Hmm, what about a page at SourceForge? I don't know if they have limits > on something like this, but I remember seeing something on SF that was > not an application, but a website for free stuff. I can't remember > exactly what it was, but it might be possible that they would host it > happily? Argh! I hate getting stuff off source forge simply because of how many clicks it takes. Personally, I was thinking more in terms of samples than complete pieces and had this idea that we would have a common library, accessed through p2p. Maybe a bit fanciful. > Dana -- "I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you." (By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
