Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> * Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> [2006-10-16 09:26:59]:
>
>
>> On 16 Oct 2006, at 02:29, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> * 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 ?
>>>
>> How about using color coding? Make connections that haven't been
>> active for over a week red, make other ones a less concerning black -
>> or something like that.
>>
>> Ian.
>>
>
> It's already like that... connections that haven't been active for over
> a week are already displayed in red.
>
It's not red until two weeks. I coded that and it hasn't changed yet.
> In fact, I would like to stop people from removing connections, not
> encourage them to do so ;)
>
