* Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> [2006-10-15 21:37:35]: > > On 15 Oct 2006, at 16:14, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > > >* Dave Baker <dbkr at freenetproject.org> [2006-10-15 20:57:57]: > > > >>On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:57, nextgens at freenetproject.org wrote: > >>>Author: nextgens > >>>Date: 2006-10-14 11:57:08 +0000 (Sat, 14 Oct 2006) > >>>New Revision: 10661 > >>> > >>>Modified: > >>> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/clients/http/ > >>>DarknetConnectionsToadlet.java > >>>Log: > >>>Small hack on fproxy to deny node removal if there isn't one week of > >>inactivity. > >> > >>Is there a particular reason for this? Surely if a user is > >>removing an active > >>node, they're doing it for a reason. This strikes me as very > >>patronising. > > > >Fighting against network churn... I'm not sure a big warning would be > >efficient enough :| > > > >Maybe I should even do a step forward : remove the "disable" > >feature and let only BurstOnly and ListenOnly. > > This isn't a good idea, I agree with Dave Baker, it is patronizing, > and reminiscent of the kind of attitude that leads to things like > DRM. If a user decides that they want to remove a connection, it > isn't our business to tell them they can't. > > Anyway, connection churn is much more likely to be due to nodes going > up and then going down permanently, than people removing peers > prematurely. > > If I could state a general principal here, remember that our software > is just a guest on the user's computer. If they tell it to do > something, it should do it. We have no business second guessing users. > > Ian. > > Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. > phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog >
Ok, so I'll revert it, but may I add a confirmation step with a discouraging warning insteed ? -- NextGen$. "On peut ob??r aux lois en souhaitant qu'elles changent, comme on sert ? la guerre en souhaitant la paix." Merleau Ponty - L'?loge de la philosophie
