* Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-19 11:47:16]: > On Sunday 18 May 2008 05:17, Florent Daignière wrote: > > * Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-17 13:35:40]: > > > > > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will > > > >> motivate users to use Freenet. Only developers download the JRE, most > > > >> users get it bundled with Java apps. The same will be true of > > > >> Freenet, its a platform, most end-users don't want platforms on their > > > >> own. The solution is *not* to bundle, that is just pretending that > > > >> Freenet is more than it is. > > > > > > > > We have a lot of traffic from wikipedia. We have a lot of traffic from > > > > slashdot. For a user to even understand what Thaw is he must first > understand > > > > what Freenet is. Thaw, Freemail, FMS and jSite, don't have any sort of > web > > > > presence right now. > > > > > > So they should get a web presence, we can't reinvent sourceforge, and > > > we can't reinvent apt-get, we don't have the resources. > > > > > > > Agreed > > > > > > Freenet is not the same as Java. It's a bad metaphor. Maybe it would be > a > > > > better metaphor if any major freenet client had a web presence and > > > > significant hits of its own, but none of them do. AND WE CAN'T WAIT FOR > THEM > > > > TO GET ONE > > > > > > Why not? It would be a 30 minute job for those apps to set up with > > > Google > Code. > > > > > > >, for much the same reason that we couldn't wait for FMS to release > > > > 0.7.0. That means we have to do what we can for *our users*, which means > > > > making it as easy as possible to get these client applications. > > > > > > You must think our users are morons if the only way they can use an > > > app is if we bundle it. FMS isn't bundled, and it seems to have no > > > shortage of users. > > > > > > This "we've got to bundle everything" is a classic feature creep > > > attitude. If you think being user friendly means installing a bunch > > > of software on someone's computer without them asking for it then you > > > have a bizarre notion of user friendliness. > > > > > > We aren't Google Code, we aren't apt-get, and we aren't Sourceforge. > > > Trying to be those things will be a massive waste of resources. > > > > > > > On the other hand, hosting freenet-related projects doesn't involve too > > much overhead as far as emu's administration is concerned... And it > > allows us to cross-reference bugs in between applications and the node, > > which is very handy. > > > > > And of course there is also the issue that we would be installing > > > software on people's machines which we didn't write, and which for all > > > we know could contain well hidden code to delete their hard disks on > > > July 4th just for a laugh. If we install this software, WE ARE > > > RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS DOES. We don't have the resources to audit > > > this code, and we can't install anonymously written code on people's > > > computers without an audit. > > > > Agreed, that's a big concern... and reviewing all the 3rd party code we > > bundle is unrealistic. > > > You mean the database engine (BDBJE currently), the native big integer code, > the java service wrapper, etc?
We can make the assumption that they are widely used and that they were reviewed by competent people outside of freenet's scope. I don't think that making such an assumption for freenet-related code is wise; Who would use Thaw/jSite/Frost/... without freenet ? > Or you agree with Ian that we shouldn't bundle any freenet-related code? I agree with Ian that bundling freenet-related code might lead to problems... Both from the PR PoV and from the legal one.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
