Matthew Toseland schrieb: > On Saturday 17 January 2009 23:50, svenerichoffmann at gmx.de wrote: >> I think the only "real" solution to guarantee safety >> is a dedicated freenet browser. > > Isn't that what I just said? >> Trying to control the behaviour and safety of standard browsers >> is serious problematic. As Webmaster i know how much information >> can be gained from visitors. >> >> A dedicated browser would also give full control about timings >> and how much connections to fproxy are made. > > Exactly, we cannot just ask the user to create a separate browser profile. WE > NEED TO DO IT FOR THEM. That means either reinstating the firefox profile or > building something new. Hopefully saces' work on wxWebkit will be a solution.
You cant prevent stupid users from being stupid. If you could catch even the last of them, evolution would create one with even more stupidity. ;-) Some other comments: -custom browser profile: invasive, not reliable, should not be used -extra, but optional!, freenet browser (maybe via FCP): May be ok, but this should stay optional, else you should code the interface into freenet itself. If you dont do this, tell the user about using a different profile/browser, but dont force them and dont change the system settings for other apps. it would annoy some people, it may damage some user systems and in general it will drive potential users away and create bad publicity. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 315 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090119/03f1d8cc/attachment.pgp>
