* Ian Clarke <ian.clarke at gmail.com> [2008-09-26 19:32:27]: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:16 PM, NextGen$ <nextgens at > freenetproject.org>wrote: > > > * Michael Rogers <m.rogers at cs.ucl.ac.uk> [2008-09-26 22:03:04]: > > > > > On Sep 24 2008, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > >> As you say, we can't run as the installing user... > > > > > > > >Well, we can! provided we don't use the windows services at all but a > > > >shortcut in the startup menu or something like that... but we don't want > > > >to because that's user-specific. We want to maximize the uptime of > > > >nodes, not to restrict it to the timespan a specific user is logged on > > > >the system. > > > > > > This is a mistake in my opinion. > > > > Well, it's not mine :p > > > > > Do what other P2P apps do: run from the start menu. > > > > > > > Freenet has different requirements; Other P2P apps do not scale and tend to > > reduce the amount of time each individual client is connected to the > > network... hence they have chosen a different technical solution. > > > How many Windows machines really have multiple active users anyway? My > guess is a very small minority, we aren't talking about 1970s-style > time-sharing mainframes here! > > Is there really likely to be a significant impact here if we just make this > run for a single user? I agree that the security implications of allowing > any user of a laptop to access FProxy probably outweigh the potential loss > to the network of Freenet nodes when someone other than the person that > installed Freenet is using the computer. >
Huh? What are we talking about here? If someone you don't trust has physical access to your computer you are doomed in any case... whether freenet is running or not when he gets his hands on the keyboard doesn't change anything.
