Hacker News Reader

Comment by sanity | Hacker News Reader

Different codebase, same purpose.

This isn't even the first time we did a ground-up redesign/rewrite of the Freenet codebase, we did this in 2008 with the 0.7 release.

View on HN

Neither of you get to be freenet, another project with the name predated it by a lot. and throughout the 90s many ISPs were named $PLACENAME_freenet

https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cleveland-freenet

Repeating a bad decision does not make it any wiser.

History will be the judge, and so far it's looking very promising given our progress.

What does your progress have to do with the name? You're so defensive that you're reasoning with non sequiturs.

What would your success metric be for whether reusing the name was the right decision?

Community size and positive community feedback, which is somewhat tangential to progress, which I assume is in the context of development. Also, the rate at which the original freenet community declines.

Number of contributors or pull requests isn't a good metric at the moment since the advent of Claude Code et al. has seen a dramatic uptick in both everywhere.

How is it tangential? Technical success is the primary driver of community growth, adoption, and long-term viability. The more it can do, and the better it does it, the more people will use it.

Community growth might imply technical success (debatable), but technical success does not imply community growth.

You can have a very technically successful project, but it doesn't mean it'll be used.

Should've called the new one Freenet 2 or Freenet NT.

Freenet++

Freenet 3.11 for Workgroups

Reply on news.ycombinator.com