> I really don't like the wording 'lite' and 'standard'. IMHO 'standard' should be without Java and something > like 'complete' for the Java including part.
I must debate this one. We need to comprehend the windows newbie's mind-set. (Unless something in the Freenet mission statement has changed), the Freenet target audience includes all basically computer-literate users. In the Windows sector, most of these users will not be Java programmers, and will have no use for or interest in Java per se. Most hardly even know that Java is a programming language/environment. 95+ of available Windows downloadables (from shareware sites like www.cnet.com, www.slaughterhouse.com, www.zdnet.com, www.nonags.com etc) are single-file exe installers, which are completely self-contained, and come up first go without bothering the user with *any* technical issues. >From the perspective of basic users, this total 'black box' paradigm is the standard on which windows software is judged. And from basic user perspective, naming a self-contained installation
