{% extends "_layout.html" %} {% block title %}I2P Development Meeting 156{% endblock %} {% block content %}

I2P dev meeting, November 15, 2005

15:15 < jrandom> 0) hi

15:15 < jrandom> 1) Net status / 0.6.1.5

15:15 < jrandom> 2) Syndie updates

15:15 < jrandom> 3) I2Phex

15:15 < jrandom> 4) I2P-Rufus

15:15 < jrandom> 5) Issue tracker

15:15 < jrandom> 6) Dynamic Keys

15:15 < jrandom> 7) ???

15:15 < jrandom> 0) hi

15:15 * jrandom waves

15:16 < jrandom> weekly status notes posted up @ http://dev.i2p.net/pipermail/i2p/2005-November/001210.html

15:17 <+bar> yalla! *fires some rounds into the air*

15:17 * jrandom ducks and covers, diving into 1) Net status / 0.6.1.5

15:18 < jrandom> as mentioned in the mail, there's been a lot of progress, and there should be a new release later tonight

15:18 * jrandom would have released it earlier, but I slept late and didn't want everyone upgrading /during/ the meeting :)

15:20 < jrandom> anyone have any questions/comments/concerns re: 1) net status / 0.6.1.5?

15:20 <+fox> <ailouros> is "please keep up the good work" an acceptable comment?

15:20 < jrandom> :) thanks

15:22 < jrandom> I've been pretty happy with the stability as of late. hopefully the next release will improve throughput beyond 4-8KBps/stream. I've done plenty of local testing, but we need to see it out in the wild

15:22 < tethra> i second ailouros's comment, and furthermore, propose a toast:

15:22 < jrandom> we've also had some more positive reports from users on dialup connections

15:22 < tethra> to jrandom, and i2p! woot!

15:22 < tethra> <3

15:23 < jrandom> w3wt. ok, if there's nothing else, lets jump on over to 2) Syndie updates

15:24 < jrandom> lots of progress on this front, but perhaps it'll be best to discuss it after the release when people can try it for themselves

15:25 < jrandom> hopefully the info up @ http://syndiemedia.i2p.net/about.html (the first link) can explain why you should bother trying it out :)

15:25 <+fox> <ailouros> oh come on, first you don't release it, then you say "try it first"... this is just teasing! :D

15:25 < jrandom> :)

15:26 < jrandom> ok ok, so lets just jump ahead to 3) I2Phex then, so y'all can post up your thoughts about syndie to syndie itself after you upgrade ;)

15:27 < jrandom> there's going to be an announcement for I2Phex 0.1.1.36 later tonight

15:28 < jrandom> the only change is the fix for the annoying "Please insert a disk" popup

15:28 < tethra> that means i can take the disk out the drive without it screaming at me, then? ;)

15:28 < jrandom> heh yes

15:28 < tethra> :D

15:30 < jrandom> ok, if there's nothing more on 3) I2Phex, lets jump on over to 4) I2P-Rufus

15:30 < tethra> what are the plans for i2phex, while we're on the subject?

15:30 < jrandom> ah

15:30 < jrandom> there's a set of feature requests posted to the forum

15:31 < jrandom> I haven't heard anything from redzara about the code merge with Phex, but Gregor is still working on abstracting the networking stuff so we can more easily keep in sync

15:32 < jrandom> generally, the app seems functional, though gwebcache support would be Really Good, so that I2Phex could work out of the box without needing to fetch any files or keys

15:32 < jrandom> I don't know anyone working on getting gwebcache support (back) into I2Phex, but if someone knows java, that'd be Really Useful

15:33 < tethra> cool.

15:33 <+fox> <reliver> _007pig perhaps ?

15:33 <+fox> <ailouros> sorry if I ask, but wasn't gnutella network the one that flooded itself to death some time ago?

15:33 < tethra> the new guys do tend to be a bit confused about it at first

15:33 <+fox> <reliver> you did not take him up on his offer for help, yesterday, jrandom

15:33 < jrandom> _007pig was looking into translation work, but anyone would be great. Phex itself has gwebcache support, but sirup disabled it

15:34 < jrandom> ailouros: gnutella is still around, but yeah, its not ideal.

15:34 < tethra> is anyone looking into perhaps changing the protocol i2phex uses to something else?

15:35 < jrandom> I'm hesitant to demand people work on specific projects, so I instead suggest a few different areas that someone could explore

15:35 < jrandom> tethra: no one that I know of

15:35 <+fox> <ailouros> well, I think I'd rather see Localhost (azureus modification) on i2p then

15:36 < tethra> surely bittorrent is more awkward than gnutella?

15:36 < tethra> in terms of seeding and such

15:36 < jrandom> ailouros: whatever people implement and maintain is good :)

15:36 <+fox> <ailouros> I don't know, I didn't use gnutella since... 6 years I think

15:37 < anti> surely it is more efficient and better test of true scalability?

15:37 <+fox> <ailouros> jrandom yeah that's a good metric :D

15:37 < jrandom> i2phex works pretty well, I've transferred lots of data through it, and found some neat content

15:37 <@cervantes> (pony pr0n)

15:37 <+fox> <ailouros> lol

15:37 < tethra> hahah

15:37 < jrandom> there may be better ways to do things, but something that works is better than something that doesn't exist

15:37 < tethra> cervantes++

15:37 < tethra> ;)

15:38 < tethra> truer words have never been spoken.

15:39 < anti> good point

15:39 <@cervantes> uhoh... jr has taken offense and gone early to dinner

15:39 <@cervantes> (sorry)

15:39 < anti> no, he's probably searching for that (mythical) pony pr0n. ;)

15:40 < jrandom> *cough* ;)

15:40 < tethra> lol

15:40 < tethra> heheh ;)

15:40 < jrandom> ok, if there's nothing else on 3), lets move on to 4) I2P-Rufus

15:40 <+fox> <reliver> i want flying pony pr0n :-)

15:40 < jrandom> Rawn / defnax: anything to add to what was posted on the forum?

15:41 <@cervantes> looks like some good progress is being made

15:41 < jrandom> aye

15:45 < jrandom> ok, if there's nothing on that, lets jump on to 5) issue tracker

15:45 < jrandom> the forum is a bit heavyweight for managing bugs and feature requests, and bugzilla is a bit of a beast...

15:46 <@frosk> isn't there a bugzilla already somewhere?

15:46 < jrandom> i've posted up some general requirements, and cervantes has come up with one workable solution

15:46 < jrandom> nah, the bugzilla was on the old host (@johnscompanies) before we migrated to sago

15:46 <+fox> <ailouros> hot about NNTP? better than forums, usually threaded...

15:46 <+fox> <reliver> strange that bugzilla is so lacking, considering the huge open source community using it ...

15:46 <+fox> <ailouros> how*

15:46 <@frosk> ah ok

15:47 < jrandom> nntp has potential, but there are some benefits over that by using syndie (simple filtering by tag): http://syndiemedia.i2p.net:8000/threads.jsp?visible=ovpBy2mpO1CQ7deYhQ1cDGAwI6pQzLbWOm1Sdd0W06c=/1132012800004&post=ovpBy2mpO1CQ7deYhQ1cDGAwI6pQzLbWOm1Sdd0W06c=/1132012800004&

15:48 < jrandom> but nntp does have the benefits of having decades of battle testing

15:48 <+fox> <ailouros> NNTP reader filter by keyword (the [] tags)? :D

15:49 <@modulus> perhaps not so much testing of late?

15:49 <+fox> <reliver> including spamming and flaming ...

15:49 < jrandom> we'd want something web accessible though, since most people don't use nntp readers

15:49 <+fox> <ailouros> I say Thunderbird is good in that sense, and you can share the enigmail between i2mail and i2nntp

15:49 <@modulus> maybe a web accessible nntp reader?

15:49 <+fox> <reliver> gateways are common

15:49 < jrandom> hmm modulus?

15:50 <@modulus> well, usenet is not so much used anymore i think

15:50 < jrandom> right, so we'd have to have an nntp server and a gateway with filtering support

15:50 <@frosk> i like cervantes' idea though

15:50 <+fox> <ailouros> (and I also say the reason people don't use NNTP readers is because forums are so much prettier and so much heavier)

15:50 <@modulus> hmm, gateway with filtering support? what are you guys talking about, maybe it helps knowing. :-)

15:51 <@modulus> imo forums suck, i hate fucking forums, they're unusable ;-(

15:51 <+fox> <ailouros> LOL I guess he wants the access from the InterNEt

15:51 <+fox> * ailouros agrees with modulus

15:51 <@frosk> modulus: so very true

15:51 < jrandom> heh modulus ;) we're discussing http://syndiemedia.i2p.net:8000/threads.jsp?visible=ovpBy2mpO1CQ7deYhQ1cDGAwI6pQzLbWOm1Sdd0W06c=/1132012800004&post=ovpBy2mpO1CQ7deYhQ1cDGAwI6pQzLbWOm1Sdd0W06c=/1132012800003&

15:51 <+fox> <ailouros> aieee the megabyte long URI

15:52 <@modulus> what I love about syndie URLs is how memorable and simple they are to type

15:52 < jrandom> I do still like http://syndiemedia.i2p.net:8000/threads.jsp?post=ovpBy2mpO1CQ7deYhQ1cDGAwI6pQzLbWOm1Sdd0W06c=/1132012800004&

15:52 < jrandom> heh

15:52 < jrandom> well, go to http://syndiemedia.i2p.net/threads.jsp then and click on the "Issue tracking software" link :)

15:53 <@frosk> bug reporting right from your router console

15:53 <@modulus> hmm, bug tracking.

15:53 < jrandom> using syndie would give us 1) integration with every I2P user's environment 2) trivial filtering 3) threading 4) spam handling (via ignore/favorites) 5) syndie a workout :)

15:54 <+fox> <reliver> sounds great :-)

15:54 <+fox> <ailouros> it is

15:54 < jrandom> aye that is a really good feature frosk... we could even have specialized html forms to post to /syndie/post.jsp

15:54 <+fox> <ailouros> and by the way, wasn't there talk about basing syndie on NNTP? :D :D :D

15:54 <@modulus> hmm, how about the Debian bug tools? they're nice i think, the mailbug

15:54 < anti-> can't argue with what already works!

15:55 <@cervantes> I think you should do it purely from a techdemo perspective

15:55 < jrandom> ailouros: using NNTP to distribute syndie posts, yeah. right now we just use ad-hoc syndication, but further enhancements would be great

15:56 <@cervantes> no better way to demonstrate syndie than with some real world use cases

15:56 < jrandom> true enough

15:56 < jrandom> ok, perhaps we can plan on getting that out in the 0.6.1.6 release

15:56 <+fox> <reliver> what i don't like about forum is they are low entry cost

15:57 <+fox> <reliver> so lots of distractions filling them.

15:57 <@modulus> i don't know, this syndie thing ... i much do not like yet, but maybe i'll get used to it.

15:57 <+fox> <reliver> and you can only work with them online

15:57 < jrandom> modulus: have you read the post linked to from http://syndiemedia.i2p.net/about.html ?

15:57 <@modulus> reliver: high-entry is bad for bug reports though, people are making you a big favour by bothering to report in a sense.

15:57 <+fox> <ailouros> they are not low entry cost: bandwidth comes to mind. They are high noise levels, so you can use [font=54]HELLO WORLD![/font] and annoy a huge number of people in no time

15:57 < jrandom> agreed modulus

15:58 <+fox> <ailouros> oh yeah and you have to be online indeed

15:58 < jrandom> heh ailouros, thats something we need to deal with in Syndie anyway :)

15:58 <@modulus> hmm, probably not, jr, let me check

15:58 <+fox> <ailouros> well, with syndie you can blacklist the users and you're pretty much set

15:58 < jrandom> well, with syndie you can create your bug reports offline, then syndicate them up to a remote archive later when you are :)

15:58 < jrandom> exactly ailouros, with one click in the new release too

15:59 <+fox> <ailouros> with forums either you hope for an admin to come and kill'em, or you keep them

15:59 < anti-> it's more uucp than nntp :)

15:59 <@modulus> hmm, which post in particular linked from there?

15:59 < jrandom> lol *exactly* anti

15:59 < jrandom> modulus: the first link "in syndie itself"

15:59 * cervantes likes the killing option

16:00 <@modulus> bah, uucp == nntp for all practical purposes :-)

16:00 < jrandom> anti-: thats actually the point - as people build newer and better transport mechanisms (uucp, nntp, usenetdht, etc), the content can flow seamlessly

16:00 <+fox> <ailouros> this all reminds me of plan9

16:01 <+fox> <reliver> i2p may be special, but usually bug reporting systems used as firewalls against users ...

16:01 < jrandom> used as firewalls against users?

16:01 <+fox> <reliver> i2p may be special, but usually bug reporting systems are used as firewalls against users ...

16:01 <+fox> <reliver> yes.

16:01 < jrandom> I want it to be really, really easy for people to report bugs

16:01 <+fox> <reliver> mozilla, thunderbird, ubuntu are just examples

16:02 <+fox> <reliver> ok, great :-)

16:02 < jrandom> mozilla/etc have that integrated "feedback agent" for submitting bug reports automatically

16:02 <+fox> <reliver> they don't read those bug reports

16:02 < jrandom> heh

16:02 <@modulus> hmm, that intro is ok, only problem is i just don't like the interface at all, i prefer doing mailish things through the folder metaphor rather than the web-with-sithloads-of-links-on-it method

16:02 <@modulus> but that's just me

16:02 < jrandom> modulus: perhaps the rss export would best serve your needs then?

16:02 <+fox> <ailouros> I agree with modulus (anyone guessed? :D )

16:02 <@cervantes> having to use pastebin to show console errors is a bit of a put-off for some folks

16:03 < jrandom> or we can get susimail integration, as cervantes suggested, to send out reports

16:03 < jrandom> (or to post to syndie)

16:03 <@modulus> it is possible, jrandom, i'll look into it. maybe i need an RSS-to-NNTP or RSS-to-POP?/IMAP converter, i'll think on it.

16:05 <@cervantes> modulus: I'll be curious to find out what you think of the new i2ptunnel interface come the next i2p release

16:05 <@cervantes> whether it's better or worse for you in terms of usability

16:05 <@cervantes> (but I guess you just normally edit the config files?)

16:07 < jrandom> ooh yeah shit, I forgot so much stuff in the status notes...

16:08 <+fox> <ailouros> then let's hurry ahead and skip to the next point in line... that was point number C, right?

16:08 * jrandom thinks it really kicks ass, but we'll get some more feedback as people try it out

16:08 <@modulus> cervantes: is that curious as in "you're going to kill yourself with a small knife in your arse as a better alternative to using it" or on the contrary? :-)

16:08 < jrandom> yeah, jumping to 6), anyone have any thoughts on the Dynamic Keys proposal?

16:09 <@modulus> cervantes: usually use the interface actually, though now i know the config files are editable ... :-)

16:09 <+fox> <ailouros> yeah, I'm pretty certain it will cause the skyrocket in the number of supposed known routers

16:09 <@cervantes> *damn* :)

16:10 <@modulus> this dynamic key is the idea that routers get a new key upon new IP, right?

16:10 <@cervantes> modulus: well, just if it's even worth bothering with WAI bullshit

16:10 < jrandom> heh thats true ailouros

16:10 <@cervantes> anyway...I digress

16:10 < jrandom> right modulus

16:11 <@modulus> well, perhaps it isn't bad that the known peers are actually guesswork, more so than now.

16:11 <+Complication> Well, the only thing I can figure out about Dynamic Keys.. seems that one shouldn't change keys needlessly (or it screws reliability performance tracking).

16:11 <+Complication> But when IP changes (rare enough?) it might not hurt.

16:11 < jrandom> right Complication. it isn't something we'd want by default. most people will *not* want it

16:12 < anti-> i'm not sure of the positive impact of the proposals.

16:12 < jrandom> it won't offer much of an improvement for anonymity either, and no improvement at all against a powerful adversary, but it might help against weak adversaries

16:12 <+fox> <ailouros> wouldn't it also give away which nodes are fixed ip and which aren't?

16:13 * cervantes has had the same key for nearly 2 years :)

16:13 <+polecat> Well at least I can get here.

16:13 < jrandom> ailouros: it would not be used by most people. only a very, very small minority would want to use it

16:13 <+fox> <ailouros> so basically more churn for a bit of protection against weak adversaries?

16:13 < jrandom> right ailouros

16:13 <+fox> <ailouros> oh ok

16:14 <+fox> <ailouros> is there a way to measure the performance hit of that feature once in the wild?

16:14 <@modulus> it would, i think, help against a node-dest intersection attack?

16:14 <+polecat> I still wonder why I keep switching between OK and OK(NAT), puzzling...

16:14 < jrandom> modulus: only for a weak adversary

16:14 <+fox> <ailouros> polecat don't worry, I keep switching between 15h uptime and 0h uptime :|

16:14 < jrandom> ailouros: not sure, though stats.i2p suggests that we can handle the churn

16:15 < jrandom> polecat: hmm, means there's likely some filtering going on

16:15 <@modulus> imo the node-dest intersection attack is the most serious likely feasible attack atm? besides the fact we are too few, i mean.

16:15 <@modulus> so, i think anything which helps on that line is probably a good idea

16:16 <+polecat> I can send UDP packets right over my router at that port, no problem from remote shells. No clue, perhaps i2p detects the NAT, and mistakenly thinks it isn't forwarded.

16:16 <+fox> <ailouros> I agree with the "good idea" as long as the churn doesn't cause a severe performance hit

16:16 < anti-> when the network is bigger, there will be plenty of churn anyway...

16:17 < anti-> *points out the obvious DoS attack involving constantly changing keys every few minutes

16:17 < anti-> what impact would that have?

16:17 <+fox> <ailouros> dos against who? :D

16:18 < jrandom> eh, new peers go in the "not failing" tier by default, and only go up to the "high capacity" or "fast" tiers after they are around for a while

16:18 < jrandom> so it won't DoS peer selection

16:18 < anti-> with a relatively strong opponent... would create an awful lot of apparently dead nodes/netdb churn?

16:18 <+Complication> anti: nobody would consider that node reliable any more

16:18 <+polecat> anti-: We have a shitlist for a reason.

16:19 < anti-> *satisfied

16:19 < jrandom> well, the netDb entries are dropped if the peer is unreachable

16:20 < anti-> then the same performance issues that were just raised about dynamic keys would apply? if the performance wouldn't be too impacted by such an attack, the performance wouldn't be affected noticeably by dynamic keys either... would it?

16:20 <+polecat> incremental trust really does help with handling late onset betrayers, I was thinking.

16:20 <+fox> <ailouros> what's a "late onset betrayer"?

16:20 <+polecat> Trust people more and more as they continue to benefit you, but never so much that they can take away more than they've given...

16:20 < anti-> join for ages, then turn judas.

16:21 < jrandom> right, peers get dropped out of the 'fast' tier quickly if they act poorly

16:21 <+Complication> I'd think it would be someone behaving like "wait until 300 participating tunnels, crash"

16:21 <+polecat> Oh, I make up phrases all the time. Yeah, Judas type betrayal, where you genuinely help someone, then betray them with the idea of cashing in at the last minute.

16:21 < anti-> oh no, the tunnels broken *rebuild*

16:21 < jrandom> the peers promoted to the 'fast' tier during that time they're dropped should then suffice

16:21 <+fox> * ailouros has fun with these incorrect bible refernces :D

16:22 < jmg> speaking of high capacity, wow im getting between 400k and 600K constantly for the router today. (but maybe all those zero hops settings im using are helping)

16:22 < jrandom> 600KBps?!

16:22 <+polecat> Hopefully during the time it takes to get to 300 participating tunnels, you'll be required to help transfer enough data it wouldn't matter if you crashed.

16:22 < jmg> yes

16:22 <+fox> <ailouros> O_O what are you connected to?

16:22 <+Complication> Such bandwidth is news to me :)

16:22 < jrandom> damn, thats fast enough to start running into our bloom filters

16:22 < anti-> ailouros: rude question to anony researchers ;)

16:23 <+polecat> It's gotta be 600KBpm or ph.

16:23 <+fox> <ailouros> sorry anti- :D but he was the first to speak

16:23 <+polecat> puh!

16:23 < jrandom> I'd love to get some stats from the oldstats.jsp page off you. but glad to hear its handling things :)

16:23 < anti-> one day i will try from i2...

16:23 < jrandom> hehe

16:24 <+fox> <ailouros> sounds cool, I2P on I2

16:24 < jmg> jrandom: im keeping graphs, ill monitor more closely, but yes i can confirm 600kB/s sustained for 2 minutes, about 5 minutes ago

16:24 <+polecat> Has anyone tried to traverse a d-link router's firewall? I'm having no luck there whatsoever and my friend keeps forgetting to forward the port.

16:24 < jrandom> nice jmg

16:24 < anti-> polecat: do we do udp holepunching yet? i lost track

16:25 < jrandom> anti-: yes, we do, for all but symmetric NATs

16:25 < jrandom> polecat: if your friend has their model #, there are a few sites online listing what type of NAT it is

16:26 < anti-> regarding late onset betrayal... might be an issue with a powerful adversary?

16:26 < jmg> jrandom: of course bittorrent has been known to rape this connection at 4MB/s sustained, but Iv eased up on that a little lately

16:26 < anti-> 24000 nodes, so you get one crashing every 10 seconds or so?

16:26 <+polecat> symmetric NAT, as opposed to full cone?

16:26 < jrandom> nice jmg

16:26 < jrandom> hmm anti-?

16:26 < jrandom> polecat: or restricted cone

16:27 <+polecat> Wow, it can even do restricted cone that's impressive..

16:27 < anti-> i don't think late onset betrayal would have any significant effect at all unless applied on an incredibly massive scale, at which other attacks would have more of an impact?

16:28 < jrandom> yeah I'm not too worried about it anti-... it'd cost too much, and we can route around failures anyway, so the damage would be minimal

16:28 <+Complication> Late betrayal kind of requires contributing a lot (as to get other machines relying on your machine).

16:28 <+fox> <ailouros> incredibly massive scale = you are all the netries on almost everyone else's router?

16:28 < anti-> that is exactly what anti-p2ps do now, but we do have anti-anti-p2ps now...

16:29 <+fox> <ailouros> no wait anti-p2p send trash instead of good data

16:29 <+fox> <ailouros> that's not the same

16:29 < anti-> that's just a faster way of getting shitlisted, so you would never be listed well.

16:29 < anti-> that wouldn't work against i2p at all, i think.

16:29 <@cervantes> jmg: I've had 4-5mb/s off torrents before, but never anything like 600k over I2P...have you got beefy hardware too?

16:29 <+polecat> I was more thinking independant of i2p persay. My government does a lot of late onset betrayal, though they try to keep it classified.

16:29 < anti-> but we would probably bleed them dry of bandwidth first!

16:29 < jrandom> anti-: if they're reliable for days on end, they can only attack once for less than 10 minutes

16:30 < jrandom> exactly anti- :)

16:30 <+polecat> Or in the context of online banking.

16:30 < jmg> does anyone have easy instructions on setting up the Native BigInteger library for amd64? if not ill just figure it out

16:30 < jrandom> heh polecat

16:30 < jrandom> jmg: its built into jbigi.jar, but it should build on amd64 now

16:30 < jrandom> though, I suppose this means we're now on 6.1) ???

16:31 < jrandom> anyone have anything else to bring up? :)

16:31 < anti-> you'd need 20000 machines or something, with a rolling crash schedule, and i think the results would be disappointing; you would end up contributing far more to the network than you took away!

16:31 < jrandom> that is the hope anti-

16:31 <+fox> <ailouros> well, worst case scenario is that people must reseed

16:31 < jmg> oh thanks

16:31 <+polecat> 64 bit processor, 4mbit upload bandwidth, sounds like somebody's a lucky bastard.

16:32 < anti-> or running a normal machine at a uni...

16:32 <+fox> * ailouros looks at his uni's hardware list and frowns

16:32 < anti-> a uni that doesn't buy dell ;)

16:33 <+fox> <ailouros> I think we have a couple of dells... from 5 years ago IIRC

16:33 <+fox> <Sonium> i think this is bad:

16:33 <+fox> <Sonium> jvm 1 | java.lang.OutOfMemoryError

16:33 <+fox> <Sonium> jvm 1 | java.lang.OutOfMemoryError

16:33 <+fox> <Sonium> jvm 1 | java.lang.OutOfMemoryError

16:33 <@cervantes> polecat: 4 megabyte ;-)

16:33 < jrandom> Sonium: yeah, once it gets one OOM, it'll die fast

16:34 <+fox> <Sonium> and this too:

16:34 <+fox> <Sonium> jvm 1 | 21:21:44.484 CRIT [ Establisher] sport.udp.EstablishmentManager: Err

16:34 <+fox> <Sonium> or in the establisher

16:34 < jrandom> (subsequent OOMs are safe to ignore)

16:34 < jrandom> once it gets a single OOM, you can ignore all subsequent errors

16:34 <+fox> <ailouros> yeah but you shouldn't have the first OOM :D

16:34 < jmg> polecat: the latency out here on the russian space station in phenominal though..

16:34 < jrandom> true ailouros

16:35 <+fox> <ailouros> oh, by the way... my router gets watchdogged quite often

16:35 < jrandom> hrm, high cpu usage?

16:35 <+fox> <ailouros> I guess it's just my unlucky installation?

16:35 <+fox> <ailouros> not that I know of, the machine is rather unloaded

16:36 <+fox> <ailouros> but I guess this is what I should expect from a buggy JVM on a somewhat bugged linux emulation layer

16:36 < jrandom> what jvm are you using, and what os?

16:36 <+fox> <Sonium> me?

16:36 <+fox> <ailouros> Sun's Java(tm) 2 Standard Edition, JRE 5.0 Update 5 on NetBSD/i386 2.0.2

16:37 < jrandom> ahhh yeah, I have done no testing on nbsd. fbsd is fine, but I don't have any experience w/ nbsd

16:38 < jrandom> might be worth trying out gcj, perhaps we can dig into that after the meeting

16:38 <+fox> <ailouros> it works rather well, but the real fun with this is that sometimes (depending on which bit he flipped when getting off the bed -- err restarting) the netbsd files get created with 540 permission :D

16:38 <+fox> <Sonium> something really sucks here

16:38 <+fox> <Sonium> jvm 1 | # Internal Error (53414645504F494E540E4350500175), pid=3500, tid=345

16:38 <+fox> <Sonium> 6

16:39 <+fox> <ailouros> sorry the netDb files are created 540

16:39 <+fox> <Sonium> I think I will reinstall this later

16:39 < jrandom> Sonium: what OS are you on? the jvm seems to be acting up

16:39 <+fox> <Sonium> winxp

16:39 < jrandom> yeah, if you're on 1.5.0_5, might be worth trying 1.4.2_09

16:39 < anti-> i don't think that's i2p's problem...

16:40 < jrandom> (1.4.2 has been more stable for me, requiring less resources)

16:40 < jrandom> and i2p doesn't use any 1.5-isms, nor do we need the 1.5 GUI improvements

16:40 <+fox> <Sonium> the curious thing is, that is never occured before

16:40 <+polecat> Can't use azureus if you don't have 1.5 though, meh.

16:40 <+fox> <ailouros> and of course I *DO* use azureus :|

16:41 <+fox> <ailouros> but it isn't a real problem... not much, I think...

16:41 <+fox> <ailouros> unless those messages about bob being fourth are relevant

16:41 < jrandom> nah, those are safe to ignore

16:41 < anti-> (am i the only one irked by utorrent and bitcomet not being open?)

16:42 <+polecat> :o Damn you bob!

16:42 < jrandom> ok, anyone have anything else for the meeting?

16:42 < anti-> muffins?

16:42 * cervantes can recommend ibm java 1.4.2 if you're after better resource handling

16:42 <+polecat> anti-: Try mlnet. caml -> weirdest language in the world, but it works well.

16:42 <+fox> <ailouros> caml is cool

16:42 <+fox> <ailouros> (if you can read it :D )

16:42 <@frosk> hey, don't diss caml

16:43 < anti-> prolog deserves a mention there, as does brainf**k et al

16:43 <+polecat> caml has horrible docs. It took me half an hour to figure out that ! usually (sometimes) is a dereference operator.

16:43 <@frosk> i'm paid to write ocaml :)

16:43 <+polecat> jrandom: Didn't know I crashed a meeting, sorry.

16:44 < jrandom> np, we're making up for our short meetings ;)

16:44 * jrandom winds up

16:44 * jrandom *baf*s the meeting closed

{% endblock %}