> I really don't like the wording 'lite' and 'standard'. IMHO 'standard'
should be without Java and something
> like 'complete' for the Java including part.
I must debate this one.
We need to comprehend the windows newbie's mind-set.
(Unless something in the Freenet mission statement has changed), the Freenet
target audience includes all basically computer-literate users.
In the Windows sector, most of these users will not be Java programmers, and
will have no use for or interest in Java per se. Most hardly even know that
Java is a programming language/environment.
95+ of available Windows downloadables (from shareware sites like
www.cnet.com, www.slaughterhouse.com, www.zdnet.com, www.nonags.com etc) are
single-file exe installers, which are completely self-contained, and come up
first go without bothering the user with *any* technical issues.
>From the perspective of basic users, this total 'black box' paradigm is the
standard on which windows software is judged.
And from basic user perspective, naming a self-contained installation
'standard' is very appropriate terminology. Please trust me on this one.
> We don't really want to trick newbies into downloading Java
> everytime they want to get Freenet.
No need to. We can have a bit of explanatory text on the download page, so
that when upgrading, users know they only need to download the 'lite'
version.
Cheers
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sebastian Späth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Freenet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 7:05 PM
Subject: FW:Re: [freenet-devl] 0.3.8.2 release?
> "David McNab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20.4.2001 01:24:33:
> >
> >I've had success with embedding the JRE into a client installer.
> >Sun are very clear about their requirements for JRE redistro - required
file
> >set etc.
> >
> >I'm confident I can make a fully-compliant installer with JRE built in,
one
> >which doesn't even tell users about Java.
> >
> >We could have 'Freenet Lite' (no Java) - as has been done in the past,
and
> >'Freenet Standard' (JRE built in).
>
> I really don't like the wording 'lite' and 'standard'. IMHO 'standard'
should be without Java and something
> like 'complete' for the Java including part. We don't really want to trick
newbies into downloading Java
> everytime they want to get Freenet.
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devl mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
