Ian Clarke wrote: > I do agree that bundling can make user's lives easier, but it should > be >>client apps bundling Freenet<<, not the other way around. > > Ian. > >
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted by application development.. Currently, when Freenet makes a new revision, that hits Slashdot, Reddit, etc, and encourages people to download.. A new revision of Frost/etc doesn't make a blip, and certainly doesn't spur much action. The second problem is that Freenet, unlike the JVM, requires direct interaction.. After downloading Freenet, users should (ideally) add Darknet links, configure cache sizes, etc. Further, the JVM doesn't load and consume resources when it's not being used directly by a program.. Freenet nodes work better when they're running 24/7, so we want people to leave Freenet running, even if their client-app isn't. If you did want to push Freenet-the-service, rather than Freenet-the-program, I'd suggest that for the late .7 and early .8 you continue the focus on making the install simpler.. For example, the project could create a Freenet-for-embedded.zip, which defaults to opennet only, auto-detects it's IP, and joins the network when the .jar is run, rather than asking the user any questions. Also of interest is the http://java.com/en/ page.. It uses a big download button, similar to Firefox, but also spends a significant amount of realestate on the page showing people what they can do using Java. Freenet could create a similar page with links to prominent Freenet applications for quick download directly from the website.. Doing this would lend some of the media coverage and promotion that the project is generating now, onto the applications. -Colin
