> > And are you saying that setting up a browser to use > external proxies is > > harder than mastering the Freenet 'alphabet soup' > URIs? > > > > You have to give extra verbage when you put a freenet > key in a web document. Even if you have a > href='freenet://scoobiedoo.free' you still have to > have a paragraph explaining that they need to download > and install Freenet, download and install FreeWeb or > one of the FreeWeb clones (that don't exist) for every > OS, and then how to configure their proxy. >
These arguments are dry and outdated. Installing a program is not a massive task. I suppose these were the same arguments used when the HTTP protocol of FTP protocol were invented and people wold just say "OH you can just type in all the commands you want, with these enormous lexigraphs" ARGGGHH I say. Make a user friendly interface. I dont want to have to consult my 32 Volumes of Freenet command switches to make my freenet site. > Repeat after me: > > Freenet is not the WWW > Freenet is not the WWW > Freenet is not the WWW > Freenet is not the WWW Well duh. freeweb is to freenet as WWW is to HTTP! Its a naming process. > > People who want security will use MSK/SSK. People > who don't need it will use Windows and FreeWeb or > more likely a web server. If someone really needs > encryption they will take the extra time to do it > right. So how does the naming compromise security again? I fail to see the problem with making it easier for people to secure their stuff. Command line people will say its the easiest thing in the world. Just cd to /usr/devNULL/42//bin and execute 'boringcommand /ssd /a hhhDD44D3 [opp23.a4] etc.... ' Oh yeah, Command line ism is the future to security. right? Wrong. Jay Ferguson _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
