From: "Ian Clarke" <[email protected]> >> >Why not just let people connect straight to >> >FProxy as nature intended >> Because with FreeWeb running as a true http proxy, it takes control of all >> the browser's access to the internet. >> This allows for a far more accurate anonymity filter. Try it and see. > >It does create the problem that if people start passing around >www.xxx.free URLs then these can only be used with Freeweb. Freeweb >should probably just interpret http://localhost:8081/ requests through >the proxy, it isn't as pretty, but at least it doesn't drive people away >from an existing cross-platform standard.
There's no reason why www.xxx.free can't work as a cross-platform standard. >> Also, I've received reports that the FreeWeb proxy is out-performing FProxy >> in speed and reliability of key retrieval. > >How is that possible if it is just going through FProxy? Haven't you been reading the lists? FreeWeb is no longer using FProxy - it's getting Freenet data totally through FCP Many days ago I published source to FWproxy, which is the proxy server component of FreeWeb. Compiles and runs on Windows and Linux. I hate to say this, but I suggest you may be digging in to a position without considering things with full objectivity. >From previous discussions on lists and chat, I notice that Freenet developers aren't sharing your staunch objection against freenet: URI handlers, on the grounds that some weird browsers may not handle them. If versions of the handler exist for (in order of browser popularity) Internet Exploiter, Netscam, Konquerer, Opera and Mozilla, you've covered 99% of all desktop systems. Who really gives a fuck that KatieSoft loyalists would have to switch to one of the other browsers while browsing Freenet? And most of the fringe Windows browsers are now using the CHtmlView MFC class as their engine, which is Internet Exploiter derived anyway (therefore compatible with Exploiter URI handler). >> What's the problem with presenting newer users with a familiar paradigm? >> Isn't that what the EOF project is doing as well? >Perhaps, but the problem is that it is a paradigm which locks people >into FreeWeb, and which forces people to change their Proxy settings >which should not really be nescessary and definitely should not be >forced upon people. Once again, please RTFL (read the lists). I published source to fwproxy, which is the proxy component of FreeWeb, and now *compiles and runs on Linux*. Cross platform. And, *every* browser worth using supports proxy servers, and fwproxy supports external proxies. What's the hassle here? Are you saying we should support some obscure browser which Uncle Winston wrote, that doesn't support the use of proxy servers? And are you saying that setting up a browser to use external proxies is harder than mastering the Freenet 'alphabet soup' URIs? >> You can now use FreeWeb without having to deal with *any* of the *superflous >> features*. If you don't like these features, you don't have to use, or even >> know, of them. But from the feedback I've had, lots of people like these >> features. >>Perhaps, but what happens when we start to see http://xxx.free/ URLs in >>webpages which can only be used with FreeWeb (where there is no good >>reason that these freesites could not be used on any platform that >>supports Freenet)? This will simply restrict the audiences for FreeWeb >>sites, and simultaneously lower the amount of generally available >>content on Freenet - all for a cosmetic improvement. What's the problem if everyone knows that www.sitename.free maps to freenet:MSK at KSK@freeweb/sitename// ? Regarding cosmetic improvements - back in the mid 80's, http simply didn't exist. Web browsers didn't exist. I'm sure at that time there were brilliant hackers who had their stashes of wonderful scripts and utilities which did hypertext transfer over FTP, uucp, RPC, or other protocols of the day. There would have been those who resisted the advent ot http on a mass scale, expressing similar disdain for new syntaxes and protocols, and playing down the value of 'cosmetic improvements'. But the developers of http weren't discouraged, they pushed forward and found mass acceptance of this standard among a new generation (and open-minded members of current generations). Result? Computer use went from about (perhaps) 3% of households running bulletin board software, to now, where up to 50% of households in many countries have computers installed, and regard them equally or more important than the VCR, TV etc. >Also, don't forget >>the dangers of relying on KSKs, how would a future Rob Malda feel if >someone mounted a KSK attack and gained control of www.slashdot.free? >The best way to prevent this is to encourage people to hand around CHKs >and SSKs. If I recall correctly, it was partly due to your insistence (2 conversations on #freenet) that I abandoned the more secure system of mapping .free URLs into a secure SSK DNS tree. If I was a bit cynical I could speculate that you encouraged this so you could employ the argument you're now using here. However, I switched to the KSK system in the end because I got sick and tired of running a 'DNS registry' process each day, and getting flamed about my alleged intentions of controlling FreeWeb content. There's another advantage of KSKs (or some model of human-readable syntax). While doing a system upgrade, I inadvertantly lost some of my SSK private keys, which led to me being completely unable to update certain freesites, which are now permanently invisible as a result. If I'd been using the KSK mapping scheme then, I could have eventually recovered from this. And another thing - there is a total horde of excellent tools, such as web accelerators, website downloaders etc, many of which choke on their own vomit when fed the 'politically correct' freenet URLs - when they see 'http://127.0.0.1/MSK%40SSK%40alphabet-soup/subkey//path/file.ext', they convert the '//' into '/', which makes them totally unusable via FProxy. Lastly, Ian, please have a serious think about some of the positions you are digging into here. Your attachment to 'alphabet soup' URIs alienates the vast majority of prospective Windows users. Even though Freenet is now appearing on mainstream computer magazine CDs, most people will drop it - they'll shut off when they get hit with the 'alphabet soup'. Wake up and smell the coffee, buddy! I'd suggest you set yourself up with a Windows system and use it full time for 2-3 weeks, and talk to other windows users (not programmers), and walk in the mind-set of over 90% of desktop PC users. Don't you want Freenet to attain a user base of hundreds of thousands, or millions of users? Or do you want to keep it in the realm of the technically elite? Regards David _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
