On 06/10/15 10:39, xor wrote: > Well, the question is if the user's care about the difference: > Fact is that Freenet is insanely small compared to the regular Internet. > They'll thus likely to continue wanting anonymous access to the regular net > - and keep uninstalling Freenet if it can only provide its own small content > :( > I do plan to soon after the performance work deal with improving the amount > of > content by getting Freetalk/Sone deployment-ready and implementing > filesharing > on top of Freetalk :) But that will likely take much longer than the > suggested > Tor/Freenet bundle. And a volunteer could work on the bundle in parallel, I > don't want to do this now since WoT/Sone/FT are more important. > > Another view on this: We've already done a similar tradeoff with providing > opennet in addition to darknet. Opennet is insanely insecure compared to > Freenet's goals, and many people hated the idea - but it had to be done to > get > a decent amount of users. > > Maybe we could do another pro-usability tradeoff with Freenet + Tor? > > And finally notice: I do think this is not something which we should be > spending money on. We really need to dedicate our resources on getting our > existing sub-projects finished. > But if a volunteer wants to deal with this, I'd say go for it :) The idea of maintaining a fork of the Tor Browser Bundle is definitely worth looking into. Getting it merged upstream as an option would be really awesome, if possible...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
