On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 07:57:05PM -0700, Lawrence W. Leung wrote: > > But even so it is static. The client does not have to worry about > > connecting to > > different nodes, only that it has one to connect to. Like news, most people > > don't run news servers locally, but they still don't want to put the news > > severs name in every message since they are almost definitely using the same > > one every time. > > I think you're misunderstanding what should be the usual use of the url. > I dont intend users to access data with a specific server in mind. > That was what the freenet:///<key> setup was for. (soon to be > freenet:<key> it seems) > > But how will you do a server specific connection if necessary? > Most of the time you wont have to but we still should make it an option. > > Ok, say we have a web browser integrated with freenet. > If it doesn't have any default servers (or any that are working), > wouldn't it be better to let users access data like they do through the > web? (ie <protocol>://<server>/<document ref>)
This is tempting people to use this type of URL in hypertext documents, which is exactly what we don't want. If someone really wants to access a specific Freenet server, they might as well go off and edit their ~/.freenet file. I am completely for the freenet:<key> setup because it does not even *imply* that someone can stick a server name and port in there. And fuck what the IANA says about URL formats. Their just a centralized bureaucratic organization working in the interests of the corporations. The only Internet standards body that I listen to at all is the IETF. > Currently it'll default to localhost:19114 if there's no host. > Soon there'll be a ~./freenet file like you suggested. So this is only > intended to be a secondary option. > > > > > With the current scheme it does default to localhost:19114. > > > Just use: freenet:///<key> > > > > > > Most users I've talked to like this scheme. > > > > Fuck the users, most users you have talked to have no clue what Freenet is. > > Data > > on Freenet is located via it's key. The entrance address is irrelevant, > > putting > > it in the data's URL is completely misleading, even if you have a the > > ability > > not to. > > > Just having the tag "free:" is confusing. You save 3 letters but loose > > > user friendliness. (free?? what the heck is free?) You throw user > > > friendliness out of the window with "KHK-SHA1" and "CHK-SHA1". > > > > What the heck is freenet? And, by golly, what they heck is http, I bet you > > that 90% of all users don't have a clue? > > Part of the freenet's goal is to keep information free right? > Arent we just wasting our time if we disregard the usability question > and effectively block out the less technically inclined part of the world? > > Lets not take a "fuck the user" approach and keep sight of our goals here. Yes, our goal is to make documents fully decentralized. By merely *allowing* a server name and port in the URL it is encouraging centralization. > Most users dont know what http stands for... so what? they've learnt to > associate it with the web. > Users of freenet will do the same. In fact it'll be even easier for them > to understand if we use the tag "freenet://". > > The fact that they *can* specifiy an entry point doesnt mean that they > will. (Do users usually choose what port to access when using http?) No, but that is because web usually uses that same port on all machines, which is the default port. > Using a separate argument works with command line interfaces, but what > happens when we integrate it into a web browser? How will these browsers > access info using another entry point? There is always ~/.freenet. > Misleading? Maybe. But it's a useful feature to have from a client point > of view. > > Thoughts? > -Larry > > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev -- Travis Bemann Sendmail is still screwed up on my box. My email address is really bemann at execpc.com _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
