Re: [freenet-chat] (amended) HOWTO: firefox 'freenet:' protocol handling
* David McNab [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-08 14:10:31]: Ian Clarke wrote: On 7 May 2006, at 18:04, David McNab wrote: Ian Clarke wrote: So websites that use this will only work with users that have Firefox and have installed the plugin? ... Isn't it preferable to encourage people to use the normal http://127.0.0.1:/ prefix? Seems we've got two imperfect options: 1) Dump user into a sea of broken links if they choose not to have their fproxy at 127.0.0.1: In which case the user will have some idea of why they are getting broken links, as they will have made a conscious decision to change their fproxy address. versus 2) Dump user into a sea of broken links if they choose not to use an extensible open-source browser Its not our job to punish the 90% of web users that don't agree with your preferred choice of web browser. Worse, we would also be punishing those people that do agree with your choice of web browser, but who don't have the appropriate plugin. Both scenarios suck, but IMHO the latter sucks a lot less. Both scenarios are similar in terms of the poor user experience, the differentiator is which is more likely. Going with freenet:-style urls is much more likely to lead to scenario 2 than sticking with our current approach is to lead to scenario 1. /me stifles the temptation to write an fproxyproxy It exists ! :) Try to set up your browser to use fproxy as an HTTP proxy server ;) IMHO it's even better in term of security as you're SURE that no external link could be loaded by your browser. NextGen$ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] (amended) HOWTO: firefox 'freenet:' protocol handling
Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote: * David McNab [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-08 14:10:31]: Ian Clarke wrote: On 7 May 2006, at 18:04, David McNab wrote: Ian Clarke wrote: So websites that use this will only work with users that have Firefox and have installed the plugin? ... Isn't it preferable to encourage people to use the normal http://127.0.0.1:/ prefix? Seems we've got two imperfect options: 1) Dump user into a sea of broken links if they choose not to have their fproxy at 127.0.0.1: In which case the user will have some idea of why they are getting broken links, as they will have made a conscious decision to change their fproxy address. versus 2) Dump user into a sea of broken links if they choose not to use an extensible open-source browser Its not our job to punish the 90% of web users that don't agree with your preferred choice of web browser. Worse, we would also be punishing those people that do agree with your choice of web browser, but who don't have the appropriate plugin. Both scenarios suck, but IMHO the latter sucks a lot less. Both scenarios are similar in terms of the poor user experience, the differentiator is which is more likely. Going with freenet:-style urls is much more likely to lead to scenario 2 than sticking with our current approach is to lead to scenario 1. /me stifles the temptation to write an fproxyproxy It exists ! :) Try to set up your browser to use fproxy as an HTTP proxy server ;) IMHO it's even better in term of security as you're SURE that no external link could be loaded by your browser. NextGen$ The latest version of SwitchProxy for Firefox allows 2-click proxy switching, so I've already got my fproxy configured in there. -- Cheers David ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
