> I'm not against people using Freenet, or for that matter the attention we > are getting (ok, I worry a little over the attention, I just can't seem to > recall any successful technologies that were all over the papers before > they had anything real to show for it making it in the end), and I don't > normally object. The issue only comes up when we start talking about > compatibility issues - I refuse to sell short quality and flexibility by > making commitments about keeping compatibility when so much is still up in > the air.
I agree, I am merely saying that we should avoid breaking backward compatability where possible, but not at the expense of the quality or flexibility of the protocol. > If anything Push should stand as an example of that it doesn't matter how > much press something get's if the technology isn't there to back it > up. The most important thing if we want to succeed is that we have a > system that works, and does so well. Everything else is secondary. I completely agree with this, but we can achieve this while still keeping an eye on our relationship with our users, even though that relationship might be premature. > I don't envy you your position in the middle of this media debacle. I > sincerely hope you are better then I would be at keeping your distance and > being able to laugh at it when it all blows over. I do laugh a lot... but kind of a manic edgy laughter much like that crazy guy in the Police Academy series ;-) Ian. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20000817/2f09b9e9/attachment.pgp>
