Conversation

Notices

1. pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Thursday, 29-Aug-2024 15:28:49 JST pistolero

   in reply to

   • NonPlayableClown
   • mischievoustomato
   • frogzone
   • Hyperhidrosis
   • broken god
   @frogzone @NonPlayableClown @mischievoustomato @Hyperhidrosis @cvnt
   
   > if you are saying that the c++ language has gotten worse over time, hard to compile etc, I have to disagree, I'm not running a super computer, I have a dinky setup and was able to compile and i2pd application on that.
   
   "I successfully invoked the compiler" does not mean the language does not suck and the ecosystem does not suck and the compiler does not suck and further, it does not imply anything about whether it sucked slightly less 25 years ago. (It sucked significantly less 25 years ago, and 25 years ago it already sucked too much.) I do not like C++ and this thread having turned into a long series of arguments, I will say this: I do not like C++, I have not ever liked C++, and, like the wily squid, using its ink defense, I will start spamming pornography at anyone that wants to argue this point with me. It is a matter of taste: I have good taste, and everyone else has shit taste, this is objectively true and it's a waste of time to try to alter my timeless, unforgivable knowledge, because all it will get you is spam.
   
   That is not to say that "i2pd" sucks, just that it's written in a language that sucks. I also do not have a use for i2p at present. Telling me that i2pd exists and can be compiled is telling me something that (this is the third time I'm saying it) I already know. I have already put this into the thread:
   
   $ ls -lh src/i2pd/build/i2pd
   -rwxr-xr-x 1 pete users 4.0M Sep 29 2022 src/i2pd/build/i2pd
   
   The timestamp says "2022", because I compiled that program in 2022.
   
   > The list of libraries that i2p uses, last I checked was not huge,
   
   Until I have a use for i2p, I don't care.
   
   > I would encourage returning to the crux of the specific issue.
   
   The crux of the issue is I have no use for i2pd. That is what I wrote. I said I don't see a reason to care aobut i2pd. I tossed in that I question the judgment of the devs because they chose Java; I wrote that not because I want to argue Java, but because I do not respect Java. I have terabytes of pornography to spam at anyone that wants to explain to me that my objectively correct conclusions are wrong and that I should like Java. I have never been wrong in my life. Your failure to listen and understand my genius is your own failure, not mine.
   
   > there is a rust version of i2p
   
   Rust is worse than C++.
   
   > i find tor devs do is the bare minimum
   
   I do not care about exit nodes, I'm skipping this paragraph.
   
   > making the user experience a bit crap,
   
   I do not care about user experience so I'm skipping this paragraph.
   
   > i2p has exits,
   
   I do not care about exit nodes.
   
   I am not open to relitigating Java. I thought that was done and I didn't want to start. I have, hopefully, shot down the Windows jets before they could scramble. I have threatened anyone that wants to discuss C++. I will hack anyone that wants to discuss distros. I would like to be untagged if anyone wants to discuss those topics.
   
   I am interested in the question that I asked, the question that was promptly ignored, and the question that, if it were answered, would actually matter: is there a reason to care about i2p specifically (i.e., a reason that does not also apply to Tor)? Hyperbole above aside, I care about this question's answer and I do not care about i2p unless I know the answer, so I'd like to be left out of further discussion of i2p unless someone can tell me that. I have run it; it didn't get me anything I wanted. So the executable has sat in ~/src for two years, doing nothing, because I don't need it.
   • reeeeeelman (realman543@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 29-Aug-2024 15:28:49 JST reeeeeelman

     in reply to

     • NonPlayableClown
     • mischievoustomato
     • frogzone
     • Hyperhidrosis
     • broken god
     @p @cvnt @NonPlayableClown @mischievoustomato @Hyperhidrosis @frogzone >is there a reason to care about i2p specifically (i.e., a reason that does not also apply to Tor)?
     The only one I can think of offhandedly is it can be used to torrent. Whereas I believe the Tor devs specifically slow torrenting down.
   • frogzone@wizard.casa's status on Thursday, 29-Aug-2024 15:28:50 JST frogzone

     • NonPlayableClown
     • mischievoustomato
     • Hyperhidrosis
     • broken god

     @p @NonPlayableClown @mischievoustomato @Hyperhidrosis @cvnt Its mildly entertaining how far this has devolved but at this point I'm going to take a break reading through this wonderful and enlightening history about where these chip numbers came from and say. @p if you are saying that the c++ language has gotten worse over time, hard to compile etc, I have to disagree, I'm not running a super computer, I have a dinky setup and was able to compile and i2pd application on that. And I don't remember a build/library hell issue.

     The list of libraries that i2p uses, last I checked was not huge, several encrpytion and hashing libraries and thats it. Its pretty simple and I was able to compile a largish executable file with a very modest system. I think its easy to make general comments but I would encourage returning to the crux of the specific issue. As stated there is a rust version of i2p that is partly done, I'll dig up the like if interested.

     > I'm not worried about Tor
     I'm not worried about it either, they depend on people using it to hide military traffic

     > without exit nodes, (i2p)'s far too into geek territory for any normies to use
     i find tor devs do is the bare minimum so only extremely privacy aware people can use tor safely, if you are an everyday user tor is not really designed for you.... the default setting exposes user to 3rdparty javascript by default, tor devs hide noScript away so new users need to be taught to move it into the toolbar so they can enable js only when they thing its okay. If tor really cared about no fingerprinting then they would include uBlock so as to have the same fingerprint as tailsOS, also by including uBlock. tor/mozilla dont make it easy for people to find offline mode, and when they do its buggy. tor haven't been able to whitelist the most basic svg elements. they force ppl to type long onion addresses whereas i2p allows human-readable addresses. they havn't been able to include the most common google fonts, and lack of fontawesome os ESPECIALLY heinous, fetches to google cloudflae for css (that NEVER DOES ANYTHING i might add) could be EASILY bypassed.... the inclusion of fontawesome alone would be a huge usability leap... they CHOSEN not to do these things for YEARS.

     all this is imo, about making the user experience a bit crap, so only the most hardcore privacy enthusiasts will bother with it they really don't want everyone to use it, because its not really designed to scale, its ONLY designed to hide military traffic. The tor exits are all in datacenters and likely monitored for network analysis anyway so use exits at your own risk.

     i2p has exits, they 'outproxies' . i2p does torrenting, which has always been a very common thing UNTIL tor people had the weird stipulation that torrenting is bad and not to do it, etc. torrenting is what many normies have done for years, and its i2p that makes it safer.

     so i2p is the ultimate normnymity tool, imo.