
GNUnet 0.10.0 released - bratao
https://gnunet.org/gnunet0-10-0
======
rb2k_
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

~~~
jordigh
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!

------
comex
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
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.

~~~
comex
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.

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

~~~
mattl
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.

------
bane
"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?

~~~
tptacek
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
Why should new systems avoid RSA?

~~~
harshreality
Because it's slower and has larger keys for equivalent security levels.
There's growing concern based on recent advances that RSA and DH may not be as
secure as is generally thought. [1]

Despite the unease certain people (like Schneier) have with ECC in general (it
_is_ more advanced math and fewer people understand it well), and NIST curves
in particular (did NSA choose weak classes of curves?)-- based on _public
knowledge_ , there are advances in factoring and the discrete log problem,
while there's no similar progress against ECDLP.

If NSA knew some attack against ECC or weakness in p256, p384, p521 curves
(i.e. anything which doesn't apply to RSA), that would mean they sabotaged the
security of Secret and TS information that's allowed to be transmitted using
NIST suite B, which uses ECC and specifically those curves. Military comms
between NATO allies might also be using Suite B.

Is it possible that NSA has gone completely off the rails, only cares about
the security of their own ECI (which I _think_ tends to use their Suite A
algorithms)? Are they willing to throw all other cryptography users, including
NATO military comms users and other parts of the US Government, under a bus in
pursuit of their ability to weaken generally used encryption? Perhaps, but I
think it's unlikely. Speaking of which, does GCHQ use Suite A algorithms, or
Suite B (including standard ECC and NIST curves), or something else? And the
rest of the Five Eyes? That's something that unreleased Snowden documents
probably speak to.

[1] [http://www.slideshare.net/astamos/bh-
slides](http://www.slideshare.net/astamos/bh-slides)

~~~
tptacek
Yep.

------
xmrsilentx
GNUsenet seems like a more appropriate name.

------
killnine
Zero dot tEn dott zero..?

------
ryan-thompson
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.

~~~
elehack
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-thompson
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.

~~~
belorn
Since you are new, I will give you some benefit of doubt and provide a portion
of the Hacker news guidelines:

 _" Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something
genuinely new to say about them."_ \-
[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

If you feel that a license that says "Full permission, so long you do not
restrict other users of the program" as more about control and less about
sharing, then keep that to you self. There is nothing genuinely new about in
such discussion, and frankly, it just tiresome to read, comment and down vote.
Note that the down vote is not because I 100% completely disagree with your
comment, but because your comment will just cause a rehash of an flame war
which is old enough to start investing in its own pension plan.

~~~
xmrsilentx
It would only constitute a flamewar topic if he were advocating an alternative
to GNU.

~~~
SwellJoe
Quote: "Restrictive GPL Licence that is less about sharing and more about
control"

If that aint an old flamewar statement, I don't know what is. Everybody here
knows what the alternative is (BSD, and BSD-like licenses). We weren't born
yesterday and we're nerdy enough to know what is being argued for.

