On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:31:58AM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote: > None follow Ian's call for opinion about the > fproxy insertion capability removal. > > My opinion about it is that was a bad(TM) idea. > > I cannot imagine a good technical reason for that. > > From a normal user point of view, this fact transform > a read/write media in a readonly media; something that > the RIAA and other organization from the Dark Side > can just dream of. > However, you were never able to insert a *site* by fproxy. This would be a useful feature, no? :) > It is unreasonable that a normal user install and understand > other programs just to have the basic feature of writing a file > on Freenet; maybe the only good change would be to put a size > limit on that. > We don't need to put a size limit on. We only need to change some HTML. Ian seems reasonably adept at this, he broke it, and I'm busy with more important things :). > An artist friend of mine, that was partecipating to "Ars Electronica" > exibition in Lintz, showing an installation that use a Freenet gateway, > had major problems because she lost the ability to insert > without warning; I downgrade a node for her, but this was just > a stop-gap solution. > > So I strongly suggest to reenable some kind of Fproxy in fred, > at least as option. > > FWIW. Ciao. Marco > > > -- > * Marco A. Calamari [EMAIL PROTECTED] * > > il Progetto Freenet - segui il coniglio bianco > the Freenet Project - follow the white rabbit > > >
-- Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet/Coldstore open source hacker. Employed full time by Freenet Project Inc. from 11/9/02 to 11/11/02.
msg03977/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
