On 15 Oct 2006, at 16:14, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > * Dave Baker <dbkr at freenetproject.org> [2006-10-15 20:57:57]: > >> On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:57, nextgens at freenetproject.org wrote: >>> Author: nextgens >>> Date: 2006-10-14 11:57:08 +0000 (Sat, 14 Oct 2006) >>> New Revision: 10661 >>> >>> Modified: >>> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/clients/http/ >>> DarknetConnectionsToadlet.java >>> Log: >>> Small hack on fproxy to deny node removal if there isn't one week of >> inactivity. >> >> Is there a particular reason for this? Surely if a user is >> removing an active >> node, they're doing it for a reason. This strikes me as very >> patronising. > > Fighting against network churn... I'm not sure a big warning would be > efficient enough :| > > Maybe I should even do a step forward : remove the "disable" > feature and let only BurstOnly and ListenOnly.
This isn't a good idea, I agree with Dave Baker, it is patronizing, and reminiscent of the kind of attitude that leads to things like DRM. If a user decides that they want to remove a connection, it isn't our business to tell them they can't. Anyway, connection churn is much more likely to be due to nodes going up and then going down permanently, than people removing peers prematurely. If I could state a general principal here, remember that our software is just a guest on the user's computer. If they tell it to do something, it should do it. We have no business second guessing users. Ian. Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20061015/ca2660ec/attachment.html>
