On Thursday 15 May 2008 23:09, Colin Davis wrote: > 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.
Strongly agreed. From the point of view of a new user, or a journalist, FMS is part of Freenet. It is highly unlikely to get any independant publicity, even if we don't bundle it. All that happens if we don't bundle it is it doesn't get used and there's one less reason for people to stay on Freenet. The base system really isn't that interesting. Fproxy plus an embeddable FMS web interface (i.e. forums-within-freesites) plus an embeddable search engine plus a webmail implementation, plus an external blog publishing tool for those who want to create content themselves, *that* is more or less a complete underground network. And as the other poster pointed out, the download size really isn't the problem. The problem is that the user often doesn't know about the apps we bundle. There are ways to deal with that. > > 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. Right. > > 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. Apart from all these excellent points ... why should the user have to download the client apps from the website and thereby blow their anonymity? Now a bad guy tracing a freesite author only has to look in the set of people who downloaded jSite! IMHO if we don't bundle the apps, we should either: 1) Ask the user about them at the end of the post-install wizard, explaining clearly and concisely what each one is, and then download them over Freenet. OR 2) Offer them for download on an Official Project Freesite, with the stuff that is hosted on our servers being officially endorsed by us for security reasons. > > -Colin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/93b26c90/attachment.pgp>
