On that subject, maybe we should tone down our too-many-peers warning? It gives users the impression that disconnected nodes are bad, when the real message is that ubernodes, or adding nodes that haven't added you, is bad.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 01:22:22AM +0100, toad wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 09:37:35PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > > On 15 Oct 2006, at 16:14, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > > > > 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. > > Agreed, but it is legitimate to warn them when they're doing something > stupid. A warning message, which can be disabled by a config option, is > reasonable. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20061024/c175eb0a/attachment.pgp>
