On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 12:16:46AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote: > 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".
No, we are constantly being told it DOESN'T work for you. And this is why we have eventually and after considerably advocacy FROM THE USERS had to take drastic steps to try to get it working - as well as diagnostics and so on that suggest it isn't working. > > 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". Freenet is different to Apache. It is quite possible that having two different routing algorithms on the same network is disruptive enough as to make them effectively incompatible. > > YMMV, this is just a single opinion, and impression. > > Be good, be well... maybe I *can* find an idle machien for another freenet > node. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
