I don't really think it'll catch on, at least anywhere in the near future. The technology of a p2p web is a bit too new, at least in the ways that IPFS and ZeroNet market themeselves. We'll probably be stuck with the way we are right now for a while yet.
Both seem promising though, and I'm willing to try both!
I think Play on Zeronet is going to increase the adoption rate. The promise of a torrent site that CAN'T be shut down is enticing to many people. The downside, is if you do get caught torrenting, are you then tried as the site maintainer (since you are hosting the website) ?
i think IPFS can be used to replace clouds in online games. so server could transfer static traffic completely to clients (or maybe even more than just static). server can distribute DB between clients instead of transferring it by pieces to _each_ client. result - no need for multinode server - you just verify what peer client A received from nearest peer client B. it can be entire DB or one transaction. this can seriously reduce server load and running costs. server can even instruct all fresh clients to download static from existing peers exclusively, instead of disturbing server.
Too new? WTF, Freenet is old as hell.
I've tried IPFS and it seems cool, but it's really not super usable until there are easty to remember names for sites or a good search engine. The hashes are a pain to remember and it's hard to find things. Can someone give me the quick rundown on zeronet?
Zeronet is a literal honeypot. There's enough documentation thereof online so I won't bother looking it up again just for (You). IPFS doesn't do dynamic content yet, and the go daemon is buggy as shit. When it doesn't bug out, though, it works really fucking well, and for static content it's already far superior to zeronet even if you ignore zeronet's honeypot shit.
For the time being I think projects like substratum are more interesting. Substratum lets nodes in the networks act as full hosts, so you still have the classical client-server architecture but with a random host from the pool. Much easier to setup for developers, and figuring shit like sideeffects is a no-brainer. It's not quite as nice as fully distributed/decentralized sites but it's effectively close enough.
You can use IPNS and any DNS system to enable easy names like e.g. localhost:whatever/ipns/mycoolsite.xxx for example. There are more complete instructions if you look around. This has been a feature since almost the beginning. The point of non-ipns records is to be able to keep a content-addressed exact versionned copy of a chunk, e.g. if a site becomes compromised or if you just prefer the older version.
I don't know enough about any of these, but I'm completely on board for a large scale network that operates under different rules than the current one.