I2P dev meeting, November 15, 2005

Quick recap

  • Present:

ailouros anti, bar, cervantes, Complication, frosk, jmg, jrandom, modulus, polecat, reliver, Sonium, tethra,

IRC 完整日志

15:15 < jrandom> 0) hi
15:15 < jrandom> 1) Net status /
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 /
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 /
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 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 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