Hi, just some very subjective thoughts by me, again. Feel free to ignore
me:)
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 04:56:28PM +0100, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want to help us develop Freenet, then run unstable and report
> bugs - but please don't expect it to work all the time, it is called
> "unstable" for a reason.
Well, I actually thought I knew what that meant. Experience with
numerous other software projects made me think so.
Fact is, unstable with respect to freenet meant exactly what it meant in
other projects, too, till the recent fork.
When I run an unstable version of gcc, or apache, or... I _still_ expect
them to try to compile c/c++/fortran etc. code and communicate in http.
This is not the case with the recent fork, and telling people "it's called
unstable for a reason" honestly sounds a bit like a (very) bad excuse,
similar to, "well, we switched to the language called englush in our
conversations, and everybody knows that unstable means something different
there than in english".
You cna argue that way, for sure, but it's not a friendly way to do so.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 06:15:11PM +0100, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When did I ever say that the Freenet community had zero value?
Well, I am following this list for a few months. And while I am pretty
confident that you didn't say this literally, that is actually the
impression that I got from what you said, namely: "you can use it, but we
don't care a shit if it works four you".
I am not angered by the fork at all (I just got back to an old snapshot
that I fortunately had and thought a few minutes about running another
node with current unstable, but memory constraints forbid that for me),
but honestly, that's the highly subjective impression I got from what you
said in the last few months.
> You flatter yourself when you claim to speak for the entire Freenet
> community. Most of the Freenet community know the meaning of "unstable".
Well, I didn't. That is, I thought I knew what it meant, but was taught
that freenet requires special semantics for that single word.
I mean, to me it sounds a bit unresonable to expect everybody to have the
same understanding of the meaning of "unstable", but freenet conflicts
with what I would call the most common meaning of "unstable version".
YMMV, this is just a single opinion, and impression.
Be good, be well... maybe I *can* find an idle machien for another freenet
node.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
