On Friday 23 May 2008 19:08, Victor Denisov wrote: > |> Mind you, they're studying at the department of computer science in one > |> of our best Universities for 3+ years, at least one of them runs Linux > |> on his laptop, so all in all they're quite above the average level when > |> it comes to using a computer. > | > | If you ignore the warning to not close the main firefox window before the > | customised one, you WILL end up with your firefox profile default set > to the > | freenet profile. Which is BAD. > > Yes, I know *why* this happens. As I've written below, tinkering with > browser settings is something that not a single common-user-oriented > application I know does (and I'm not even sure that installer actually > *asks* to install a custom profile).
I have heard of it actually. IIRC there was an anonymous banking app or something that created a themed firefox profile, but I can't remember what it was off the top of my head... > Most people are completely unaware > that Firefox actually supports multiple profiles (many probably don't > even know what profile is at all). So even computer-literate users > aren't prepared to what they see when Freenet opens FF for the first time. Maybe so. > > |> I'm not pushing for any immediate changes, but perhaps being more > |> user-friendly regarding the custom FF profile is something to consider > |> for 0.7.1? > | > | I'd welcome any suggestions. So far, afaics the options are: > | 1) Fix the Firefox bug that causes the profile resetting. -no-remote > should > | cause it not only to not coalesce with an existing Firefox copy, but > also not > | to write to the default profile. Also find a new skin that works with > FF3, > | and ideally is a little more stable! > > Well, current skin is terrible, just IMHO, of course. Also, at least on > Windows, Firefox had asked me when Freenet ran for the first time if I > want to set the "freenet" profile as default - maybe something was fixed > by the FF devs themselves? Isn't that a side effect of checking the always-ask-me box in profile manager, or something? > > | In any case we should make it obvious to the user that the freenet > browser has > | something to do with Freenet. > > Yes, I agree with that. Maybe showing a screenshot in the installer and > telling the user that if your FF looks like this, then you're working > with Freenet? Just to make them more ready? Seems rather over the top, no? > > |> On a somewhat related note, I also got several reports that Freenet > |> works very well. Interestingly, many students have discovered and began > |> using FMS, but no one had mentioned Frost so far. Some have also found > |> Thaw and told me that "it's not working", I know that Thaw's not without > |> its share of bugs, but it *did* work for me when I was trying it out. > |> Could it be DoSed now just as Frost is? > | > | I doubt it. Maybe it's just not very user friendly? > > Most likely. VolodyA suggested that they hadn't subscribed to any > indices, that could be true. When I ran it, I also had intermittent > problems where Thaw randomly refused to talk to the node, disabling > multiple simultaneous FCP connections helped with that, but I doubt > that's the case now - too advanced ;-). I'll try to find out more, but > it'll only be possible next week. > > Regards, > Victor Denisov. -------------- 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/20080523/600e59de/attachment.pgp>
