Le samedi 16 mai 2009 20:10:00, Matthew Toseland a ?crit : > On Saturday 16 May 2009 15:02:19 Thomas Sachau wrote: > > Matthew Toseland schrieb: > > > On Friday 15 May 2009 16:35:40 Thomas Sachau wrote: > > >> Matthew Toseland schrieb: > > >>> On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:35:07 Thomas Sachau wrote: > > >>>> Matthew Toseland schrieb: > > >>>>> My observation: Can we get rid of the "I will configure it > > >>>>> manually" choice? > > >>>>> And maybe the welcome page? (#3094) > > >>>> > > >>>> You want to force everyone to use the Wizard? > > >>> > > >>> Why would that be bad? > > >> > > >> What if i dont want to do use the Wizard? Also, if i removed the > > >> "wizard > > > > > > done" line (intentinally or > > > > > >> by mistake), a new run would remove my custom settings. With the > > >> option, > > i > > > > can just stop the wizard > > > > > >> and no harm done. > > > > > > If you know enough to skip the wizard you should shutdown the node, > > > edit > > the > > > > config file and tell the node you have done the wizard! > > > > Is there a need for editing the config file? You can set everything with > > the > > config section too, but > > > without the "i want to do it myself", you cant disable the wizard from > > the > > GUI. > > > >>>>> Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that > > >>>>> they should > > >>>>> use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And > > then > > > >>>>> let > > >>>>> them choose one, and then use it when they click on the icon to > > >>>>> browse Freenet? (#3104) > > >>>> > > >>>> This would produce additional work for people packaging freenet, > > >>>> since > > > > > > they > > > > > >>>> would have to warn the > > >>>> user themselves, while users tend to ignore the output of the > > >>>> package manager. > > >>>> So this would lower the chance of people noticing the request for a > > >>>> different freenet > > >>>> browser/profile and therefor i am against it. I suggest the current > > way: > > >>>> Warning during first call > > >>>> of the webinterface like it is currently done. > > >>> > > >>> Well, maybe on linux, with the packages that we don't have yet... > > >> > > >> Did you miss the Gentoo ebuilds? > > >> Isnt it a goal to get other distros to package it too? Just because it > > did > > > > not happen until now, > > > > > >> doesnt mean it wont happen some time in the future. May just need more > > time > > > > since Gentoo as source > > > > > >> based distro may be a bit better for packages than binary distros. > > > > > > No, it is a goal to package it with private repositories. Having a > > > debian package that is frozen for 3 years is not useful at the present > > > time. > > > > > >> And if we have it for linux, why would you like to add additional code > > for > > > > windows (both in the > > > > > >> installer and in freenet, which would have to detect the OS and then > > decide > > > > to show the warning or > > > > > >> not)? > > > > > > Well, we could do something similar for *nix, no? Launch a suitable > > privacy > > > > enabled browser when the user runs the browse-freenet script? > > > > You dont know the user system. While windows user systems may be similar > > to > > each others, this is not > > > true for linux. Where would you place that script? How would you check > > which > > browser the user wants > > > to use? This idea looks more like the way user handling is done on > > windows > > or ubuntu: Expect him to > > > know nothing and try to do everything for him. Might be nice for > > beginners > > and if it works, but > > > makes things worse for experienced users, who want to do it different and > > also makes it harder, if > > > there are problems. > > Imho you cant beat stupidity. Either users read a message and act the > > right > > way or they dont. You > > > cannot prevent them from doing bad things. > > > > Additionally, Gentoo is about choice, if there is a warning, the user can > > choose, with a forcing > > > script, there is no choice, which is a bad idea for this philosophy, > > therefor i vote against such a > > > script for linux. > > Well, we already have a Browse Freenet script on all three platforms. > Currently it detects browsers that we know about. You don't have to use it > if you don't want to. But we should extend it to use incognito mode if > possible, and to favour browsers with such support. I dunno how we can > determine whether such a mode works with the particular installed version > though...
I don't see the point forcing the user to choose. I don't see the point displaying a warning neither btw : should we detect all the potentials security threats (or unused benefits) on the user's system ? Things like that are just waste of time. What would be good instead is a documentation about how to have a secure environment in which you can run freenet, and display a link to it during the wizard (or display the howto directly). Additional code to detect if the user use freenet in a secure environment is just a waste of time. Good documentation isn't.
