On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 02:03:44PM -0600, Mark J Roberts wrote: > It was a guess based on the number of requests for working seed > nodes we get in #freenet. Looks like our seed nodes are unreliable.
Well perhaps you should have characterised it as a guess then rather than a solid fact. > > What part of "we would obviously document them as known bugs with > > the release" constitutes "lying to the users"? > > It's the part where you misrepresent nascent development code that > happens to sometimes work as a stable application that happens to > have a few shortcomings. It is always the easiest and least contraversial position to shout "it isn't ready yet!" or "it doesn't work!" from the sidelines, but it doesn't get us anywhere. The metric for when we should release 0.5 is when it is more stable than 0.3 - and my opinion is that with the resolution of the datastore issues this will be the case, it will be a long time before it reaches the stability of mature applications like Linux - that is why it is 0.5 and not 1.0. I would love to hear what statistics you have collected to support your depressing opinion. I note from something you said earlier on IRC that most of your evidence is formed from people's requests for help on #freenet. I am sure that anyone whose primary source of information on Mozilla's stability was Bugzilla would end up with a rather pessimistic view too, yet a fairer way to get an impression of stability is to actually run the code, which I have been doing for weeks on three different platforms (Windows, Redhat, and Debian) with a variety of JVMs. The *only* bug I have encountered is the datastore bug, which is why I said that we must fix that before considering a 0.5 release. There are clearly also issues with seednodes (arguably tied to the datastore bug), and I have hinted at several ways we can address this. I may post a more formal proposal later today. That is not to say there aren't other bugs, but that is clearly the most damaging one. > > If you see problems with software like Frost why don't you help > > them fix it rather than just heckling from the peanut gallery. At > > least Jan-Thomas has got off his arse and is actually trying to do > > something useful. > > I have enough nightmares about Freenet's general susceptibility to > flooding attacks. So why not do something about it rather than trying to spread doom and gloom based on your rather unscientific "evidence" of the node's current state? Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian at freenetproject.org Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ -------------- 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/20011111/939983da/attachment.pgp>
