Dnia sobota, 16 listopada 2013 22:19:03 Lodewijk andré de la porte pisze:
I am presently using it. I have connected with a significant portion of the network. I find it is largely inert.
(...)
I do not have a solid recommendation. I use it for curiosity reasons now. Although occasionally stimulating in it's novelty I find it unfit technically and practically for critical work. It still seems to be the best tool for the job, not unlike the rock-and-stick tools were the best for cutting lumber in days long past.
Thank you for your comments. These are valuable, and they seem to confirm my (short) experience with it.
2013/11/16 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl>
inb4 "Java suxxorz" -- yes, I tend to hold that view myself; hoever, if RetroShare is a workable solution, we can simply add C++/Python/Whatever implementations later, right?
I think the implementation is messy. It might be less then normally convenient to add other implementations.
I am more interested in the protocol. People are already using RetroShare, right? It's FLOSS, it has some sort of a protocol underneath. So it is possible to create new implementations that do not make errors of the original one. *IF* (and that's a pretty big "if") the protocol is solid, of which I have no way to ascertain. So I guess this is my question: does RetroShare's protocol seem solid and sensible? Should we invest time and effort into it? As it is the first DHT-based communication and filesharing application/system based on strong encryption that is actually usable -- at least from what I have seen. -- Pozdr rysiek