On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Evan Daniel <evanbd at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> wrote: >> >> Really? ?I don't see much functionality that fits that description. >> >> Sure, the advanced mode config and stats pages get rather long. ?But >> >> surely implementing those is no harder than implementing the simple >> >> mode ones. >> > >> > There is a lot. ?Core functionality is being able to surf web pages, >> > download and upload files, participate in the forums, and perhaps this >> > new >> > blogging thing. >> >> And configuring Freenet, and verifying that your node is healthy, and >> adding darknet peers. ?And probably searching as well. > > Yes, and those things.
Which leaves what, precisely? >> > Wait, are you referring to what is required to compile Java to >> > Javascript >> > using GWT, or what is required to compile the entire GWT development >> > toolset >> > from source? ?I see no reason that we need to do the latter, any more >> > than >> > we need to compile Eclipse or javac from source before using it. >> >> You can't build those? ?That's news to me. > > Are you asserting that you can't build GWT if you put in the effort? ?I > thought you hadn't tried. ?Open source doesn't require that something is > easy to build, it just requires that it can be done. > >> >> At present building Freenet does not require any tool that can't be >> built from source. ?I don't think that's a mandatory property: when >> Freenet started, this was not true of Java, and I think that was a >> reasonable decision. ?But I don't think it's a property we should give >> up lightly, either. > > It was never a requirement for Freenet, neither in the past, nor now. ?That > being said, I've seen no evidence to support your implication that GWT > cannot be built from source. > >> >> Anyway, as I said already, I don't see much point in arguing if your >> mind is made up. > > I've taken the time to consider and respond to every point you've made, and > at no point have I said that my mind is made up on anything. ?You are the > one bringing the discussion to a close but you want to make it my fault. > Sorry, but I'm wise to such passive aggressive rhetorical tactics :-) You're not the only one perceiving poor rhetorical technique. I'm not quite sure what your comments above are supposed to read like, but to me it sounds like you're accusing me of being either lazy or inept, ignoring the very explicit caveats I included in the original statement, and then asking me to prove a negative. I assumed you knew about the issues with GWT; they've been discussed multiple times on IRC (and I'm not alone in having made that assumption). I apologize for the assumption; it was a mistake (a not unreasonable one, imho), not something intended maliciously. When you said you weren't aware of the issues, I explained what my understanding of them was -- making it quite clear that the knowledge was second-hand, not first. If you want better information, please either do the research or ask someone who has. Asking around on the IRC channel would be a good place to start. (I don't feel good offering names, since I'd probably misattribute something.) Anyway, this is my last message on the subject. This isn't intended as a passive-aggressive technique, nor was my previous similar comment. It's simply that I don't think this discussion is going anywhere productive. I'd rather bow out of the discussion and let others sort out what the correct course of action is than continue a debate that I'm not enjoying and don't think is likely to accomplish anything productive. My time is better spent on things like trying to understand splitfile math or trust algorithms. I'm not trying to make any implications by that, or assign blame. If you're reading any of these messages as hostile, then blame my writing ability, not my intent. (Mild annoyance, yes, sometimes, but not hostility or intentionally poor rhetoric.) Evan Daniel
