On Thursday 27 November 2008 17:40, Juiceman wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Zero3 wrote: > > Random thoughts after yesterdays discussions: Would it be an idea to > > move towards placing the users' identities in their Freenet FireFox > > profiles? > > I for one won't use the Freenet Firefox profile. The following are > reasons based on my original impression from when it was first > released: (Things may have changed and gotten better, but I won't know > because it gave me a bad first impression.) > > It's a pain, I don't like the fact that I can't have a regular Firefox > window open at the same time. It's obnoxious that I am not allowed to > change the settings. It is easily corrupted depending on which order > you open and close browsers. > > > What you could do: > > - Login, fproxy settings and user identity can be sent via a cookie for > > iirc, the Freenet Firefox profile doesn't store cookies. > > > the fproxy URL (= not *yet another* set of username/passwords, and no > > hassle implementing digital signature access control and user management). > > - Bookmarks can already be handled by FireFox (which some may not like > > (compared to the fproxy bookmark thingy), and some may like (those who > > wants a new theme without the activelinks) - yet does have advantages > > such as allowing users to use bookmark-manipulating plugins > > (pre-fetchers, bookmark sync, organization, etc.)). fproxy could (needs > > to) still have the default bookmarks, but that wouldn't be a privacy > > concern. > > - Datastore can (and should?) remain shared between users (with some > > privacy concerns, but I believe there are settings for that already?) > > > > I'm not sure about darknet peers. From a network point-of-view, they > > should probably be shared, but isn't that a privacy concern? Or? > > > > - Zero3 > > imo, things are getting too complex and I suggest we move away from > all of this customization crap. Trust your users to make their own > decision. Educate them; this could be handled with a FAQ page built > into the jar with a link on the fproxy homepage. All this nannying of > the users is insulting. > > This project seems to suffer from schizophrenia. On one hand, the > development is done on Linux with almost no testing on Windows systems > by the devs and little concern for helping them. On the other hand, > we don't trust them to make decisions and even hide some info from > them and install Freenet as a service without an "opt-out". Most > software will give the option via a radio button in the install that > users can choose between installing as a service and starting from the > startup folder. I know its better for Freenet but if it pisses off > users and they uninstall completely and bad mouth us to their friends > it will have the opposite outcome.
About the profile, there are good reasons both performance and security for it to be separate from regular browsing. Perhaps it should be a standalone app, as many easier to use and more popular p2p's do, but we don't have the resources for that. About auto-run, we are trying to minimize the complexity of the installation process. Every additional warning will lose us users. It's much better to just maximise performance by default than to present the user with endless warnings and dialogs saying "Do this if you're an idiot". -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20081127/0f056e00/attachment.pgp>
