[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Ian Clarke 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. >> > I must be forgetting something. ?What is the problem with building GWT? >> > ?AFAIK, the entire stack is open source. >> >> First, I haven't actually tried to build it (and don't intend to, >> given what I've heard). ?If someone who has cares to speak up, go with >> what they have to say. > > 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. I believe they're both available in Gentoo and Debian, both of which require a clean build from source, iirc. (javac in the form of OpenJDK, which Freenet runs just fine on afaik.) 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. Anyway, as I said already, I don't see much point in arguing if your mind is made up. Evan Daniel
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Ian Clarke 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. > > 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 :-) Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: ian at sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 ------ next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100211/a9dc8041/attachment.html>
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: >> >> I've said everything I have to say on the specifics: I think FProxy is >> in need of an overhaul, I think input from someone who actually knows >> how to design UIs would be wonderful, and I see nothing obviously >> objectionable in the mockup. ?If you want detailed comments from me, I >> need something clickable. ?Failing that, give me design documents, and >> I can comment on those instead. ?If it's too early in the process for >> that, that's fine; I don't mind waiting while work progresses to that >> stage. >> >> >> I don't?think this would be so much of a problem, except it sounds like >> >> you >> >> expect other people to help write code while telling them you plan to >> >> throw out what they've been working on already. >> > >> > Firstly, all I've done is made a proposal, and defended that proposal, >> > I'm >> > not dictating anything to anyone. >> >> Perhaps you haven't noticed, or perhaps it's just me, but it's my >> impression that everyone around here thinks that what you say goes, >> seeing as you're the official head of the project and the one in >> charge of the money. > > Hah, well I don't think I've ever been dictatorial, and decisions are made > frequently that I disagree with, by Toad and others. ?Perhaps Toad can think > of examples, but I don't recall ever forcing him to do something he thought > was the wrong course of action, just because I officially control the purse > strings. It's all about impressions. What you say has a different context, even if the words are the same. At least, that's my impression. > >> >> I agree. ?I think a completely new UI would be wonderful. ?I think the >> best way to do that would be to develop the new UI as a separate >> branch, bring it up to parity or near-parity with current FProxy in >> functionality, and then switch over. > > Well that is more or less the plan, except I don't think it needs to be > parity, because there is a lot of functionality in fproxy that is mainly for > developers and not useful to most users, and I don't think we need to wait > for it to be implemented to switch to a UI that is better in every other > way. 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. I don't think it needs to be complete parity, just close to it. Once it's close enough, switch over. If people need some of the missing functionality, they can add it in. I just think trying to maintain two separate UIs, both in a usable state, is a really bad idea. > >> >> ?But, as I'm not the one who will >> be writing the code, I really don't object if those who are want to do >> it differently (for example, toad's idea of gradually migrating FProxy >> to be the new idea). > > I do disagree with a gradual migration, FProxy is fundamentally flawed for > reasons I've already mentioned, and a piecemeal migration will be a lot more > work and is likely to have a much worse outcome. ?Further, neither my wife > nor any other designer will be interested in just doing a piecemeal > migration. ?To get the most value out of a designer you need to give them a > blank slate. > >> >> ?However, I do think it would be a bad idea to >> try to support two different UIs at the same time for the general >> community. > > I think some degree of parallelization is inevitable. ?If we wait until the > new UI provides every last piece of functionality that fproxy does, it will > never happen. > >> >> > But if you accept that FProxy has serious and fundamental flaws, then it >> > makes perfect sense to replace it with a pre-existing open source web >> > framework that has elegantly solved all of these problems. ?GWT is the >> > best >> > candidate for this I've found. >> >> GWT may be best, but IMHO the lack of a way to build it cleanly should >> be treated as blocking level bug on inclusion. ?We aren't so desperate >> for a way to generate HTML that it makes sense to take a step >> backwards on having Freenet be dependent only on Free software. ?But >> we've been down that path before, and afaict your mind is made up. > > I must be forgetting something. ?What is the problem with building GWT? > ?AFAIK, the entire stack is open source. First, I haven't actually tried to build it (and don't intend to, given what I've heard). If someone who has cares to speak up, go with what they have to say. My understanding is that it's nominally open source, but that the build relies on a lot of binary jars. And those rely on other jars, etc. So, in theory you could build it. In practice, there are no instructions and I haven't heard anyone profess to knowing how (despite making the attempt). > >> >> Also, I think it's quite important that whatever we end up with, it >> behave well with js and cookies turned off. >
[freenet-dev] FCPv2 and raw data
Am Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2010 18:21:44 schrieb Martin 'The Bishop' Scheffler: > hello freenetters, > > i intend to write an external tool to request and insert raw keys, very > much like the KeyExplorer does inside the node. > > I've overlooked the FCPv2 documentation, but found no clue. > so, how do i get access to the raw data - without redirects, manifests et > al? > > good byte > 'single block raw get',.., 'splitfileget from deep in container' can be exposed via fcp(plugin talking with KeyExplorer/KeyUtils), this should not be a problem. A 'raw single block inserter' can be added too. http://github.com/saces/KeyUtils http://github.com/saces/KeyUtils/issues MfG saces
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
> I don't know how to be more clear: I don't know. Just as I probably > wouldn't be able to tell you whether I liked a painting from a > description of it, I don't know how to tell you whether I like a UI > without actually clicking on it. I don't see anything obviously > objectionable. I think you should proceed, and I'll chime in when I > have something to add. On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: > > Well that is more or less the plan, except I don't think it needs to be > > parity, because there is a lot of functionality in fproxy that is mainly > for > > developers and not useful to most users, and I don't think we need to > wait > > for it to be implemented to switch to a UI that is better in every other > > way. > > 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. > > I must be forgetting something. What is the problem with building GWT? > > AFAIK, the entire stack is open source. > > First, I haven't actually tried to build it (and don't intend to, > given what I've heard). If someone who has cares to speak up, go with > what they have to say. > 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. > > That doesn't make sense. If that constituency wants to implement a > "lite" > > UI for Freenet then they should, but this shouldn't become a requirement > > that holds back (and may-well kill) any substantive advance in our UI for > > the rest of us. > > It's a small minority of computer users. It's a significant minority > of Freenet users. Remember, you've intentionally selected for as > paranoid a userbase as possible. You're at the extreme non-paranoid > end of the curve, if the people wandering into IRC are anything to > judge by. > We should be concerned with legitimately paranoid people, but not irrationally paranoid people. Using a Javascript-enabled browser like Chrome in privacy mode is no less secure than using any other browser if we filter Javascript downloaded over Freenet (as we already do). You're suggesting that we dramatically increase the amount of work involved in creating any new UI to cater to the irrationally paranoid. I don't agree. > Besides, so far I haven't heard mention of anything where js is > required for functionality. I've heard plenty of suggestions for ways > it improves the user experience; I absolutely think we should use it > for that. Just make sure it degrades gracefully. > Making sure it degrades gracefully vastly increases the amount of work required, essentially requiring that we implement a parallel non-JS GUI. I don't agree that this is necessary. If some people want it, they are welcome to implement it themselves, but it shouldn't hold up the UI for everyone else. > > Perhaps its a cultural issue, but I see no problem with robust debate, > > provided that it stays on-topic, is based on facts not ego, and doesn't > > descend into ad-hominem. If you are aware of specific examples where the > > project has been hurt by the culture on these lists, then you should > bring > > it to our attention, but I just don't see it. > > If your wife is unwilling to speak on the email list about it, that > should be a sufficient example. Its not that she is unwilling, she just doesn't see the point, since most of the discussion is meta stuff, rather than useful feedback on the proposed design. Saying that you can't offer feedback on the design until you have a working UI is ridiculous. Static wireframes are a very common way to present an initial draft of a UI, and most people have no trouble using a little imagination to form an opinion on it. Most user interfaces are at a very late stage of the design process before you can actually interact with them. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: ian at sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100211/0203c750/attachment.html>
[freenet-dev] Freetalk status update (interesting!)
On Thursday 11 February 2010 20:41:23 Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:22 PM, xor wrote: > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010 17:46:31 Ian Clarke wrote: > > > What is the benefit of doing a purge? I hope you're not doing it just > > > because you said you would, rather than for some concrete technical > > > > reason. > > > > > > To get rid of all the mess in the boards list with multiple boards for > > the same purpose, bad hierarchy etc. and get rid of broken messages, > > trust lists (self referential trust values), corrupted databases, etc. > > Just start over clean. > > Fair enough, I guess its like removing a bandaid, best to do it soon and > fast. > Yes. I'm working on it. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100211/469c39e7/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100211/469c39e7/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-dev] Feedback wanted: Browser picking policy on Windows
Hey all I'm looking for feedback regarding browser picking policy on Windows. At the moment, we do: Maintain a list of registry paths and common program locations of various browsers. These are prioritized according to whether they support incognito mode and how their security is rated in general. The first found browser in this list is launched. If no known browser is found, we fall back to whatever system default the user has. My suggestion: Instead we rely solely on the system default. Windows XP, Vista and 7 all have systemwide protocol defaults that can be changed via the control panel. Most browsers ask the user if they want to change their browser default until they either accept or dismisses the suggestion. On this basis, I believe we should accept the user's choice of browser by running Freenet in whatever browser the user has as default. Mind you that Chrome, FireFox and IE all have incognito modes now. Worst-case scenario is that the user has some sucky version of IE as default, but we *still* warn about IE in fproxy. My view is that it is more important to integrate properly with the user's desktop, accept his choice of browser, and ease ourselves of most of the browser-list maintenance, rather than insisting on choosing a browser for the user. Comments? - Zero3
[freenet-dev] FCPv2 and raw data (feature request)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Martin 'The Bishop' Scheffler wrote: > On Thursday 11 February 2010 21:30:06 bo-le wrote: >> Am Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2010 18:21:44 schrieb Martin 'The Bishop' >> >> Scheffler: >> > hello freenetters, >> > >> > i intend to write an external tool to request and insert raw keys, very >> > ?much like the KeyExplorer does inside the node. >> > >> > I've overlooked the FCPv2 documentation, but found no clue. >> > so, how do i get access to the raw data - without redirects, manifests et >> > ?al? >> > >> > good byte >> >> 'single block raw get',.., 'splitfileget from deep in container' can be >> exposed via fcp(plugin talking with KeyExplorer/KeyUtils), this should not >> ?be a problem. > "can be exposed" means it is not so far? > >> A 'raw single block inserter' can be added too. > same question. > >> http://github.com/saces/KeyUtils >> http://github.com/saces/KeyUtils/issues > well, i will try this. > > but anyway, i think it should go to the core functionality of FCPv2. i need to > have full control over freenet data without more dependencies than installing > fred. > > good byte > > p.s. the main reason for this request is that i am disappointed with the > splitfile handling code inside fred. and i want to do it better without java > ;) What are you trying to change? Splitfile internals shouldn't be part of the Freenet API, imho. If you're trying to do better reporting of the status of blocks to the user or something, then that should be added to FCP and exposed, not the internals. If you're actually trying to handle splitfiles outside of Fred, I think that's a bad idea. For example, I'm currently working on the math for changes to the splitfile internals. Having external programs in use that hook deeply into the splitfile code would mean that improving splitfiles would break things, which is a bad position to be in. (Also, your mail client seems to be breaking the threading for me.) Evan Daniel
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: >> >> > Starting work and asking for input was?precisely?what I did in the email >> > that started this entire thread. >> >> My impression from later messages in the thread was that when people >> had comments, you tended to overrule them or dismiss them. > > I really wish, rather than critiquing my tone, you would respond to the > specific arguments I've made in favor of a fresh start with the UI. ?All > I've done is made a proposal, and defended it when people have made comments > I don't agree with. ?That isn't overruling or dismissing, its called > "discussing", and its exactly what we should be doing. I didn't jump into this thread intending to critique your tone. I was trying to say something like "Hey Ian, it looks like you're stepping on a lot more toes than I think you meant to or need to. Perhaps you should look into that?" But, as with nearly all writing on the Internet, it seems to have been read in a different light than I intended it. I've said everything I have to say on the specifics: I think FProxy is in need of an overhaul, I think input from someone who actually knows how to design UIs would be wonderful, and I see nothing obviously objectionable in the mockup. If you want detailed comments from me, I need something clickable. Failing that, give me design documents, and I can comment on those instead. If it's too early in the process for that, that's fine; I don't mind waiting while work progresses to that stage. > >> >> I don't?think this would be so much of a problem, except it sounds like >> you >> expect other people to help write code while telling them you plan to >> throw out what they've been working on already. > > Firstly, all I've done is made a proposal, and defended that proposal, I'm > not dictating anything to anyone. Perhaps you haven't noticed, or perhaps it's just me, but it's my impression that everyone around here thinks that what you say goes, seeing as you're the official head of the project and the one in charge of the money. You're not the same as any other developer, and for better or worse your words won't be read in the same context. > The reality however is that FProxy is a mess. ?We've basically implemented > our own web framework, and it violates almost every rule of good web > framework design. ?We've got HTML structures implemented in Java code, and > no convenient support for AJAX, among other flaws. > If you disagree with this observation then say so, and let's debate it. I agree. I think a completely new UI would be wonderful. I think the best way to do that would be to develop the new UI as a separate branch, bring it up to parity or near-parity with current FProxy in functionality, and then switch over. But, as I'm not the one who will be writing the code, I really don't object if those who are want to do it differently (for example, toad's idea of gradually migrating FProxy to be the new idea). However, I do think it would be a bad idea to try to support two different UIs at the same time for the general community. > But if you accept that FProxy has serious and fundamental flaws, then it > makes perfect sense to replace it with a pre-existing open source web > framework that has elegantly solved all of these problems. ?GWT is the best > candidate for this I've found. GWT may be best, but IMHO the lack of a way to build it cleanly should be treated as blocking level bug on inclusion. We aren't so desperate for a way to generate HTML that it makes sense to take a step backwards on having Freenet be dependent only on Free software. But we've been down that path before, and afaict your mind is made up. Also, I think it's quite important that whatever we end up with, it behave well with js and cookies turned off. (Some things like Freetalk login requiring cookies makes sense; I don't see a way to avoid that. But we should minimize the number of such things where possible.) I don't think that's a particularly hard requirement, provided we pay attention to it. (Note that I'm not saying we can't use them; just that it should degrade well, without losing any functionality.) > I know a lot of work has gone into FProxy, but that fact alone cannot > prevent us from considering the pros and cons of replacing it. ?We've thrown > out a lot of code over the years with Freenet, its an essential part of > software development. > Regardless, nothing will get thrown out any time soon, we'll be lucky if we > get a new UI for Freenet 0.9. >> >> For example, there's >> been a significant amount of UI work and discussion of same on >> Freetalk -- why are you announcing that "the plan" (which isn't so >> much "the plan" as "your plan" at present, afaics) involves throwing >> all that out and starting over, rather than participating in that >> discussion? > > This isn't "the plan", this is "a plan" that I'm seeking feedback on. >> >> I think
[freenet-dev] Freetalk status update (interesting!)
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 17:46:31 Ian Clarke wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:13 AM, xor wrote: > > Because we will have a message-purge of Freetalk when leaving the beta > > phase (this was always said in a big red box on the Freetalk web > > interface so please do not complain) we should do the purge ASAP so that > > not too many messages are lost. Right now there is not much content on > > Freetalk and the useful content has been added to the bugtracker already > > so purging is still okay. > > What is the benefit of doing a purge? I hope you're not doing it just > because you said you would, rather than for some concrete technical reason. > > Ian. To get rid of all the mess in the boards list with multiple boards for the same purpose, bad hierarchy etc. and get rid of broken messages, trust lists (self referential trust values), corrupted databases, etc. Just start over clean. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100211/dc5a18ea/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100211/dc5a18ea/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
ble or maybe even triple the complexity of implementing the UI to accomodate a tiny minority of users that, for whatever reason, can't or won't enable Javascript and cookies in their browser. That doesn't make sense. If that constituency wants to implement a "lite" UI for Freenet then they should, but this shouldn't become a requirement that holds back (and may-well kill) any substantive advance in our UI for the rest of us. > You've also laid some criticisms on the general behavior of the > community. I tend to agree with you on those, but in the past when > I've said things about it I was ignored. So I was hoping that you > would be willing to put your leadership role to use in improving the > situation. > Perhaps its a cultural issue, but I see no problem with robust debate, provided that it stays on-topic, is based on facts not ego, and doesn't descend into ad-hominem. If you are aware of specific examples where the project has been hurt by the culture on these lists, then you should bring it to our attention, but I just don't see it. > > I don't think she has any interest in discussing anything other than > > feedback on the proposed redesign. Certainly she has absolutely no > interest > > in getting involved in a meta-debate like this one. I'll try to persuade > > her to chime in, but if you actually had specific questions for her it > may > > help. > > I don't really have any specific questions at present. I won't claim > to know how to run a UI design project, but the ones I've observed and > (peripherally) participated in tended to involve looking for feedback > in a fairly organized way. If there are specific next steps where > you're seeking specific input, I'd be happy to offer it. But, given > only a vague and open-ended prompt, I don't have much to say; I > figured I'd keep quiet while those that have ideas and opinions voice > them. Don't worry, when I have something I think is productive to > add, I'll do so. Well, did you like the original PDF I posted? Do you think its the right direction? Is there anything in it you would have done differently? I'm just getting mixed messages. Some people say "oh, a mock-up is insufficient for us to form an opinion". Others are criticizing me for being dictatorial and moving too fast. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: ian at sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100211/6c0ac6db/attachment.html>
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: > > Starting work and asking for input was precisely what I did in the email > > that started this entire thread. > > My impression from later messages in the thread was that when people > had comments, you tended to overrule them or dismiss them. I really wish, rather than critiquing my tone, you would respond to the specific arguments I've made in favor of a fresh start with the UI. All I've done is made a proposal, and defended it when people have made comments I don't agree with. That isn't overruling or dismissing, its called "discussing", and its exactly what we should be doing. > I don't think this would be so much of a problem, except it sounds like you > expect other people to help write code while telling them you plan to > throw out what they've been working on already. Firstly, all I've done is made a proposal, and defended that proposal, I'm not dictating anything to anyone. The reality however is that FProxy is a mess. We've basically implemented our own web framework, and it violates almost every rule of good web framework design. We've got HTML structures implemented in Java code, and no convenient support for AJAX, among other flaws. If you disagree with this observation then say so, and let's debate it. But if you accept that FProxy has serious and fundamental flaws, then it makes perfect sense to replace it with a pre-existing open source web framework that has elegantly solved all of these problems. GWT is the best candidate for this I've found. I know a lot of work has gone into FProxy, but that fact alone cannot prevent us from considering the pros and cons of replacing it. We've thrown out a lot of code over the years with Freenet, its an essential part of software development. Regardless, nothing will get thrown out any time soon, we'll be lucky if we get a new UI for Freenet 0.9. For example, there's > been a significant amount of UI work and discussion of same on > Freetalk -- why are you announcing that "the plan" (which isn't so > much "the plan" as "your plan" at present, afaics) involves throwing > all that out and starting over, rather than participating in that > discussion? > This isn't "the plan", this is "a plan" that I'm seeking feedback on. I think there's a big difference between saying "here's what I've > done, what do you think?" and "here's what I've done, and what I > expect everyone else to do in the future, what do you think?" even > when the amount of prior input from other people is the same. > Its not what I expect people to do, its what the plan requires *if* people accept it. Would you prefer that I pretend that replacing the UI required nobody to do anything? > > I've suggested that she join in, but she isn't a huge fan of the > > rough-and-tumble of Freenet's mailing lists. Hopefully she will. > > Ian. > > To be really blunt (and yes, I realize that's probably part of the > problem), I suggest that you should work on fixing that problem rather > than avoiding it. I won't pretend to know how to go about doing that > (hopefully you have some ideas?), but I think it would help if you > lead by example. I haven't been criticizing what you're trying to do, > and personally I don't have much of an issue with how you've done it. > What I've been trying to say is that it looks to me like you ruffled > some feathers, as an outside observer who's mostly neutral, I think I > can make a decent guess as to why. > All I've done is proposed that we improve our UI, made an argument for why doing this properly requires replacing fproxy's current infrastructure, and argued that GWT is the best candidate for a replacement web framework. The reality is that FProxy is a mess, we've basically implemented our own web framework, and its not a good one. We have HTML constructs embedded directly in code, which is always a bad idea. Sooner or later our web interface needs a reboot to address these architectural deficiencies, and I don't think there is any advantage to pretending that this isn't the case. And I'm serious about wanting to hear your wife's words directly. It > would be helpful to be able to distinguish your ideas and opinions > from hers. I don't think she has any interest in discussing anything other than feedback on the proposed redesign. Certainly she has absolutely no interest in getting involved in a meta-debate like this one. I'll try to persuade her to chime in, but if you actually had specific questions for her it may help. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: ian at sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100211/f5bcfee3/attachment.html>
[freenet-dev] FCPv2 and raw data
hello freenetters, i intend to write an external tool to request and insert raw keys, very much like the KeyExplorer does inside the node. I've overlooked the FCPv2 documentation, but found no clue. so, how do i get access to the raw data - without redirects, manifests et al? good byte -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100211/6cbbdae9/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-dev] Encouraging contributions and community development
Ian Clarke skrev: > Normally stuff only gets done with > Freenet when someone goes ahead and does it. Sitting around waiting > for permission rarely gets anything done. I couldn't agree more. Maybe we should figure out how to improve this bad habbit? I think we would get a lot more positive support, feedback and code back from the community if we could create a more... pleasant atmosphere... Perhaps we culd try to kind of move away from our current (IMHO!) harsh-tone-everyone-on-his-own-ish style (ala the Linux Kernel mailing list) towards a more encouraging-welcoming-open-community style (ala the Ubuntu forums)? :) - Zero3
[freenet-dev] Encouraging contributions and community development
On 02/11/2010 04:25 PM, Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) wrote: > I couldn't agree more. Maybe we should figure out how to improve this > bad habbit? I think we would get a lot more positive support, feedback > and code back from the community if we could create a more... pleasant > atmosphere... we could make the mailing list software append "just because i don't think it's a good idea doesn't mean you shouldn't do it" to the end of every email :) or something to that effect. X
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Evan Daniel wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ian Clarke wrote: >> > I'm sorry if it appears that way, but this has been discussed >> > on-and-off for quite a long time. ?Normally stuff only gets done with >> > Freenet when someone goes ahead and does it. ?Sitting around waiting >> > for permission rarely gets anything done. >> >> Well, merely looking at your recent emails, it looks (to me) more like >> you've decided what we're doing, whether others like it or not, rather >> than starting work and asking for input. > > Starting work and asking for input was?precisely?what I did in the email > that started this entire thread. My impression from later messages in the thread was that when people had comments, you tended to overrule them or dismiss them. I don't think this would be so much of a problem, except it sounds like you expect other people to help write code while telling them you plan to throw out what they've been working on already. For example, there's been a significant amount of UI work and discussion of same on Freetalk -- why are you announcing that "the plan" (which isn't so much "the plan" as "your plan" at present, afaics) involves throwing all that out and starting over, rather than participating in that discussion? I think there's a big difference between saying "here's what I've done, what do you think?" and "here's what I've done, and what I expect everyone else to do in the future, what do you think?" even when the amount of prior input from other people is the same. >> Also, you should let your wife talk to us :) ?I'd rather hear what she >> has to say directly; there's no point in playing Telephone here. > > I've suggested that she join in, but she isn't a huge fan of the > rough-and-tumble of Freenet's mailing lists. ?Hopefully she will. > Ian. To be really blunt (and yes, I realize that's probably part of the problem), I suggest that you should work on fixing that problem rather than avoiding it. I won't pretend to know how to go about doing that (hopefully you have some ideas?), but I think it would help if you lead by example. I haven't been criticizing what you're trying to do, and personally I don't have much of an issue with how you've done it. What I've been trying to say is that it looks to me like you ruffled some feathers, as an outside observer who's mostly neutral, I think I can make a decent guess as to why. I'd far rather have you call people out for bad behavior as required (myself included, if needed) than have you decide it's easier to let the development culture keep driving away much-needed expertise. Or making gentle suggestions, or whatever you think best, but I suspect others share my opinion: subtlety and tact are nice, but can be ineffective when the problem is a lack of them. And I'm serious about wanting to hear your wife's words directly. It would be helpful to be able to distinguish your ideas and opinions from hers. Evan Daniel
[freenet-dev] Freetalk status update (interesting!)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:22 PM, xor wrote: > On Wednesday 10 February 2010 17:46:31 Ian Clarke wrote: > > What is the benefit of doing a purge? I hope you're not doing it just > > because you said you would, rather than for some concrete technical > reason. > > > To get rid of all the mess in the boards list with multiple boards for the > same purpose, bad hierarchy etc. and get rid of broken messages, trust lists > (self referential trust values), corrupted databases, etc. Just start over > clean. > Fair enough, I guess its like removing a bandaid, best to do it soon and fast. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: ian at sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100211/4ffefeae/attachment.html>
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On 02/11/2010 01:06 PM, Ximin Luo wrote: > On 02/10/2010 08:46 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: >>> And before you say I'm a developer, I don't know anything about UI, IMHO >>> that is the wrong attitude. Most UI is created by developers, and we need to >>> improve our skills at it. >> >> We've had almost a decade to test our UI skills with Freenet, the result is >> the mess we have today. We need a fresh perspective, and a fresh >> perspective inherently means that we can't do it piecemeal. > > a few man-decades. bigger projects have had hundreds of man-decades. > > from a project co-ordination point of view, you're going to need to bring in > someone specially (GSoC?) to do a UI overhaul. and that would help with the whole "Good UIs are designed starting from the user's needs, and working backwards. Freenet's current UI has been designed starting with freenet's current architecture and working forward." thing. X
[freenet-dev] Encouraging contributions and community development
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) wrote: > Ian Clarke skrev: >> >> Normally stuff only gets done with >> Freenet when someone goes ahead and does it. ?Sitting around waiting >> for permission rarely gets anything done. > > I couldn't agree more. Maybe we should figure out how to improve this bad > habbit? I think we would get a lot more positive support, feedback and code > back from the community if we could create a more... pleasant atmosphere... > > Perhaps we culd try to kind of move away from our current (IMHO!) > harsh-tone-everyone-on-his-own-ish style (ala the Linux Kernel mailing list) > towards a more encouraging-welcoming-open-community style (ala the Ubuntu > forums)? IMHO better docs and a better defined API would also be helpful. Evan Daniel
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On 02/10/2010 08:46 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: >> And before you say I'm a developer, I don't know anything about UI, IMHO >> that is the wrong attitude. Most UI is created by developers, and we need to >> improve our skills at it. > > > We've had almost a decade to test our UI skills with Freenet, the result is > the mess we have today. We need a fresh perspective, and a fresh > perspective inherently means that we can't do it piecemeal. a few man-decades. bigger projects have had hundreds of man-decades. from a project co-ordination point of view, you're going to need to bring in someone specially (GSoC?) to do a UI overhaul. it's not going to work well if you expect toad to do it when there are many other things in the freenet core to be getting on with, and especially if he isn't familiar with the proposed UI changes, isn't too keen on the design anyway, and is going to have to take time away from other things to design a code framework for it. X
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Evan Daniel wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Ian Clarke wrote: >> I think having professional UI design help on Freenet would be >> wonderful. ?It's obviously something most of us are bad at. >> >> Is she going to be available to support the code in the longer term? > > Unless we get divorced she'll be within nagging distance for the > foreseeable future ;-) > >> Personally, I think that's a bigger concern than getting it written in >> the first place. > > Well, my hope is that she will get the ball rolling with a framework > and a set of UI conventions, that others can then expand upon. > >> Obviously I can't speak for others, but I suspect a lot of the >> resistance to this comes because you seem to be presenting it as a >> fait accompli, not something open for discussion. > > I'm sorry if it appears that way, but this has been discussed > on-and-off for quite a long time. ?Normally stuff only gets done with > Freenet when someone goes ahead and does it. ?Sitting around waiting > for permission rarely gets anything done. Well, merely looking at your recent emails, it looks (to me) more like you've decided what we're doing, whether others like it or not, rather than starting work and asking for input. Waiting for consensus before doing anything is silly, but so is completely unilateral decision-making. I think the issues so far are more ones of perception than anything else. I think you should go ahead and start a development branch based on the pdf you posted, and let people try it out. I'd far rather offer comments on a UI than on pictures. Also, you should let your wife talk to us :) I'd rather hear what she has to say directly; there's no point in playing Telephone here. > >>?What sort of input >> does she need from us? ?I know you've asked for some in the past, but >> it's been a while. ?Personally, I'm happy to offer some input, but >> would find it easiest if she has specific questions of limited scope, >> and could then follow up with more, rather than starting with a large >> and open-ended request. > > Well, I think feedback along the lines of whether you think the > mock-up is a good direction or not would be helpful. > > UIs are hard to design by committee. ?They require someone to plant a > flag in the sand, and then others can offer their feedback and > suggestions relative to that flag. ?That is what we're trying to do > here. I don't think the mockup is complete enough by itself to offer meaningful comments. I think to make meaningful comments, I would want to see either something functional but incomplete, or a mockup plus whatever design documents accompany it. I presume this is based on something like a set of user stories; seeing those would be helpful. Evan Daniel
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Evan Daniel wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ian Clarke wrote: > > I'm sorry if it appears that way, but this has been discussed > > on-and-off for quite a long time. Normally stuff only gets done with > > Freenet when someone goes ahead and does it. Sitting around waiting > > for permission rarely gets anything done. > > Well, merely looking at your recent emails, it looks (to me) more like > you've decided what we're doing, whether others like it or not, rather > than starting work and asking for input. Starting work and asking for input was precisely what I did in the email that started this entire thread. > Also, you should let your wife talk to us :) I'd rather hear what she > has to say directly; there's no point in playing Telephone here. > I've suggested that she join in, but she isn't a huge fan of the rough-and-tumble of Freenet's mailing lists. Hopefully she will. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: ian at sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100211/dee99ce5/attachment.html>
[freenet-dev] Encouraging contributions and community development
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Ximin Luo wrote: > On 02/11/2010 04:25 PM, Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) wrote: > > I couldn't agree more. Maybe we should figure out how to improve this > > bad habbit? I think we would get a lot more positive support, feedback > > and code back from the community if we could create a more... pleasant > > atmosphere... > > we could make the mailing list software append "just because i don't think > it's > a good idea doesn't mean you shouldn't do it" to the end of every email :) > or > something to that effect. Right, and we could do a search and replace on words to make it politer, here are some suggestions: "wrong" -> "not entirely correct" "bug" -> "unintentional feature" "stupid" -> "not completely in agreement" ;-) Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: ian at sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100211/97f4bcf3/attachment.html>
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Evan Daniel wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Ian Clarke wrote: > I think having professional UI design help on Freenet would be > wonderful. ?It's obviously something most of us are bad at. > > Is she going to be available to support the code in the longer term? Unless we get divorced she'll be within nagging distance for the foreseeable future ;-) > Personally, I think that's a bigger concern than getting it written in > the first place. Well, my hope is that she will get the ball rolling with a framework and a set of UI conventions, that others can then expand upon. > Obviously I can't speak for others, but I suspect a lot of the > resistance to this comes because you seem to be presenting it as a > fait accompli, not something open for discussion. I'm sorry if it appears that way, but this has been discussed on-and-off for quite a long time. Normally stuff only gets done with Freenet when someone goes ahead and does it. Sitting around waiting for permission rarely gets anything done. >?What sort of input > does she need from us? ?I know you've asked for some in the past, but > it's been a while. ?Personally, I'm happy to offer some input, but > would find it easiest if she has specific questions of limited scope, > and could then follow up with more, rather than starting with a large > and open-ended request. Well, I think feedback along the lines of whether you think the mock-up is a good direction or not would be helpful. UIs are hard to design by committee. They require someone to plant a flag in the sand, and then others can offer their feedback and suggestions relative to that flag. That is what we're trying to do here. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: ian at sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Ximin Luo wrote: >> from a project co-ordination point of view, you're going to need to bring in >> someone specially (GSoC?) to do a UI overhaul. > > My wife, who is a UI designer, has volunteered (she is "pupok" on FreeNode). > >> it's not going to work well if >> you expect toad to do it when there are many other things in the freenet core >> to be getting on with, and especially if he isn't familiar with the proposed >> UI >> changes, isn't too keen on the design anyway, and is going to have to take >> time >> away from other things to design a code framework for it. > > I don't expect Toad to do the UI, although he may need to help with > wiring it into the codebase. I think having professional UI design help on Freenet would be wonderful. It's obviously something most of us are bad at. Is she going to be available to support the code in the longer term? Personally, I think that's a bigger concern than getting it written in the first place. Obviously I can't speak for others, but I suspect a lot of the resistance to this comes because you seem to be presenting it as a fait accompli, not something open for discussion. What sort of input does she need from us? I know you've asked for some in the past, but it's been a while. Personally, I'm happy to offer some input, but would find it easiest if she has specific questions of limited scope, and could then follow up with more, rather than starting with a large and open-ended request. Evan Daniel
[freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Ximin Luo wrote: > from a project co-ordination point of view, you're going to need to bring in > someone specially (GSoC?) to do a UI overhaul. My wife, who is a UI designer, has volunteered (she is "pupok" on FreeNode). > it's not going to work well if > you expect toad to do it when there are many other things in the freenet core > to be getting on with, and especially if he isn't familiar with the proposed > UI > changes, isn't too keen on the design anyway, and is going to have to take > time > away from other things to design a code framework for it. I don't expect Toad to do the UI, although he may need to help with wiring it into the codebase. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: ian at sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On 02/10/2010 08:46 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: And before you say I'm a developer, I don't know anything about UI, IMHO that is the wrong attitude. Most UI is created by developers, and we need to improve our skills at it. We've had almost a decade to test our UI skills with Freenet, the result is the mess we have today. We need a fresh perspective, and a fresh perspective inherently means that we can't do it piecemeal. a few man-decades. bigger projects have had hundreds of man-decades. from a project co-ordination point of view, you're going to need to bring in someone specially (GSoC?) to do a UI overhaul. it's not going to work well if you expect toad to do it when there are many other things in the freenet core to be getting on with, and especially if he isn't familiar with the proposed UI changes, isn't too keen on the design anyway, and is going to have to take time away from other things to design a code framework for it. X ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On 02/11/2010 01:06 PM, Ximin Luo wrote: On 02/10/2010 08:46 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: And before you say I'm a developer, I don't know anything about UI, IMHO that is the wrong attitude. Most UI is created by developers, and we need to improve our skills at it. We've had almost a decade to test our UI skills with Freenet, the result is the mess we have today. We need a fresh perspective, and a fresh perspective inherently means that we can't do it piecemeal. a few man-decades. bigger projects have had hundreds of man-decades. from a project co-ordination point of view, you're going to need to bring in someone specially (GSoC?) to do a UI overhaul. and that would help with the whole Good UIs are designed starting from the user's needs, and working backwards. Freenet's current UI has been designed starting with freenet's current architecture and working forward. thing. X ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Ximin Luo xl...@cam.ac.uk wrote: from a project co-ordination point of view, you're going to need to bring in someone specially (GSoC?) to do a UI overhaul. My wife, who is a UI designer, has volunteered (she is pupok on FreeNode). it's not going to work well if you expect toad to do it when there are many other things in the freenet core to be getting on with, and especially if he isn't familiar with the proposed UI changes, isn't too keen on the design anyway, and is going to have to take time away from other things to design a code framework for it. I don't expect Toad to do the UI, although he may need to help with wiring it into the codebase. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: i...@sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Ian Clarke i...@locut.us wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Ximin Luo xl...@cam.ac.uk wrote: from a project co-ordination point of view, you're going to need to bring in someone specially (GSoC?) to do a UI overhaul. My wife, who is a UI designer, has volunteered (she is pupok on FreeNode). it's not going to work well if you expect toad to do it when there are many other things in the freenet core to be getting on with, and especially if he isn't familiar with the proposed UI changes, isn't too keen on the design anyway, and is going to have to take time away from other things to design a code framework for it. I don't expect Toad to do the UI, although he may need to help with wiring it into the codebase. I think having professional UI design help on Freenet would be wonderful. It's obviously something most of us are bad at. Is she going to be available to support the code in the longer term? Personally, I think that's a bigger concern than getting it written in the first place. Obviously I can't speak for others, but I suspect a lot of the resistance to this comes because you seem to be presenting it as a fait accompli, not something open for discussion. What sort of input does she need from us? I know you've asked for some in the past, but it's been a while. Personally, I'm happy to offer some input, but would find it easiest if she has specific questions of limited scope, and could then follow up with more, rather than starting with a large and open-ended request. Evan Daniel ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Evan Daniel eva...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Ian Clarke i...@locut.us wrote: I think having professional UI design help on Freenet would be wonderful. It's obviously something most of us are bad at. Is she going to be available to support the code in the longer term? Unless we get divorced she'll be within nagging distance for the foreseeable future ;-) Personally, I think that's a bigger concern than getting it written in the first place. Well, my hope is that she will get the ball rolling with a framework and a set of UI conventions, that others can then expand upon. Obviously I can't speak for others, but I suspect a lot of the resistance to this comes because you seem to be presenting it as a fait accompli, not something open for discussion. I'm sorry if it appears that way, but this has been discussed on-and-off for quite a long time. Normally stuff only gets done with Freenet when someone goes ahead and does it. Sitting around waiting for permission rarely gets anything done. What sort of input does she need from us? I know you've asked for some in the past, but it's been a while. Personally, I'm happy to offer some input, but would find it easiest if she has specific questions of limited scope, and could then follow up with more, rather than starting with a large and open-ended request. Well, I think feedback along the lines of whether you think the mock-up is a good direction or not would be helpful. UIs are hard to design by committee. They require someone to plant a flag in the sand, and then others can offer their feedback and suggestions relative to that flag. That is what we're trying to do here. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: i...@sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
[freenet-dev] Encouraging contributions and community development
Ian Clarke skrev: Normally stuff only gets done with Freenet when someone goes ahead and does it. Sitting around waiting for permission rarely gets anything done. I couldn't agree more. Maybe we should figure out how to improve this bad habbit? I think we would get a lot more positive support, feedback and code back from the community if we could create a more... pleasant atmosphere... Perhaps we culd try to kind of move away from our current (IMHO!) harsh-tone-everyone-on-his-own-ish style (ala the Linux Kernel mailing list) towards a more encouraging-welcoming-open-community style (ala the Ubuntu forums)? :) - Zero3 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
[freenet-dev] FCPv2 and raw data
hello freenetters, i intend to write an external tool to request and insert raw keys, very much like the KeyExplorer does inside the node. I've overlooked the FCPv2 documentation, but found no clue. so, how do i get access to the raw data - without redirects, manifests et al? good byte signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ian Clarke i...@locut.us wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Evan Daniel eva...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Ian Clarke i...@locut.us wrote: I think having professional UI design help on Freenet would be wonderful. It's obviously something most of us are bad at. Is she going to be available to support the code in the longer term? Unless we get divorced she'll be within nagging distance for the foreseeable future ;-) Personally, I think that's a bigger concern than getting it written in the first place. Well, my hope is that she will get the ball rolling with a framework and a set of UI conventions, that others can then expand upon. Obviously I can't speak for others, but I suspect a lot of the resistance to this comes because you seem to be presenting it as a fait accompli, not something open for discussion. I'm sorry if it appears that way, but this has been discussed on-and-off for quite a long time. Normally stuff only gets done with Freenet when someone goes ahead and does it. Sitting around waiting for permission rarely gets anything done. Well, merely looking at your recent emails, it looks (to me) more like you've decided what we're doing, whether others like it or not, rather than starting work and asking for input. Waiting for consensus before doing anything is silly, but so is completely unilateral decision-making. I think the issues so far are more ones of perception than anything else. I think you should go ahead and start a development branch based on the pdf you posted, and let people try it out. I'd far rather offer comments on a UI than on pictures. Also, you should let your wife talk to us :) I'd rather hear what she has to say directly; there's no point in playing Telephone here. What sort of input does she need from us? I know you've asked for some in the past, but it's been a while. Personally, I'm happy to offer some input, but would find it easiest if she has specific questions of limited scope, and could then follow up with more, rather than starting with a large and open-ended request. Well, I think feedback along the lines of whether you think the mock-up is a good direction or not would be helpful. UIs are hard to design by committee. They require someone to plant a flag in the sand, and then others can offer their feedback and suggestions relative to that flag. That is what we're trying to do here. I don't think the mockup is complete enough by itself to offer meaningful comments. I think to make meaningful comments, I would want to see either something functional but incomplete, or a mockup plus whatever design documents accompany it. I presume this is based on something like a set of user stories; seeing those would be helpful. Evan Daniel ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Encouraging contributions and community development
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Ximin Luo xl...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On 02/11/2010 04:25 PM, Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) wrote: I couldn't agree more. Maybe we should figure out how to improve this bad habbit? I think we would get a lot more positive support, feedback and code back from the community if we could create a more... pleasant atmosphere... we could make the mailing list software append just because i don't think it's a good idea doesn't mean you shouldn't do it to the end of every email :) or something to that effect. Right, and we could do a search and replace on words to make it politer, here are some suggestions: wrong - not entirely correct bug - unintentional feature stupid - not completely in agreement ;-) Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: i...@sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Encouraging contributions and community development
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Christian Funder Sommerlund (Zero3) li...@zero3.dk wrote: Ian Clarke skrev: Normally stuff only gets done with Freenet when someone goes ahead and does it. Sitting around waiting for permission rarely gets anything done. I couldn't agree more. Maybe we should figure out how to improve this bad habbit? I think we would get a lot more positive support, feedback and code back from the community if we could create a more... pleasant atmosphere... Perhaps we culd try to kind of move away from our current (IMHO!) harsh-tone-everyone-on-his-own-ish style (ala the Linux Kernel mailing list) towards a more encouraging-welcoming-open-community style (ala the Ubuntu forums)? IMHO better docs and a better defined API would also be helpful. Evan Daniel ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Evan Daniel eva...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ian Clarke i...@locut.us wrote: I'm sorry if it appears that way, but this has been discussed on-and-off for quite a long time. Normally stuff only gets done with Freenet when someone goes ahead and does it. Sitting around waiting for permission rarely gets anything done. Well, merely looking at your recent emails, it looks (to me) more like you've decided what we're doing, whether others like it or not, rather than starting work and asking for input. Starting work and asking for input was precisely what I did in the email that started this entire thread. Also, you should let your wife talk to us :) I'd rather hear what she has to say directly; there's no point in playing Telephone here. I've suggested that she join in, but she isn't a huge fan of the rough-and-tumble of Freenet's mailing lists. Hopefully she will. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: i...@sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Freetalk status update (interesting!)
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 17:46:31 Ian Clarke wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:13 AM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote: Because we will have a message-purge of Freetalk when leaving the beta phase (this was always said in a big red box on the Freetalk web interface so please do not complain) we should do the purge ASAP so that not too many messages are lost. Right now there is not much content on Freetalk and the useful content has been added to the bugtracker already so purging is still okay. What is the benefit of doing a purge? I hope you're not doing it just because you said you would, rather than for some concrete technical reason. Ian. To get rid of all the mess in the boards list with multiple boards for the same purpose, bad hierarchy etc. and get rid of broken messages, trust lists (self referential trust values), corrupted databases, etc. Just start over clean. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
[freenet-dev] Feedback wanted: Browser picking policy on Windows
Hey all I'm looking for feedback regarding browser picking policy on Windows. At the moment, we do: Maintain a list of registry paths and common program locations of various browsers. These are prioritized according to whether they support incognito mode and how their security is rated in general. The first found browser in this list is launched. If no known browser is found, we fall back to whatever system default the user has. My suggestion: Instead we rely solely on the system default. Windows XP, Vista and 7 all have systemwide protocol defaults that can be changed via the control panel. Most browsers ask the user if they want to change their browser default until they either accept or dismisses the suggestion. On this basis, I believe we should accept the user's choice of browser by running Freenet in whatever browser the user has as default. Mind you that Chrome, FireFox and IE all have incognito modes now. Worst-case scenario is that the user has some sucky version of IE as default, but we *still* warn about IE in fproxy. My view is that it is more important to integrate properly with the user's desktop, accept his choice of browser, and ease ourselves of most of the browser-list maintenance, rather than insisting on choosing a browser for the user. Comments? - Zero3 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Freetalk status update (interesting!)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:22 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote: On Wednesday 10 February 2010 17:46:31 Ian Clarke wrote: What is the benefit of doing a purge? I hope you're not doing it just because you said you would, rather than for some concrete technical reason. To get rid of all the mess in the boards list with multiple boards for the same purpose, bad hierarchy etc. and get rid of broken messages, trust lists (self referential trust values), corrupted databases, etc. Just start over clean. Fair enough, I guess its like removing a bandaid, best to do it soon and fast. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: i...@sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] FCPv2 and raw data
Am Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2010 18:21:44 schrieb Martin 'The Bishop' Scheffler: hello freenetters, i intend to write an external tool to request and insert raw keys, very much like the KeyExplorer does inside the node. I've overlooked the FCPv2 documentation, but found no clue. so, how do i get access to the raw data - without redirects, manifests et al? good byte 'single block raw get',.., 'splitfileget from deep in container' can be exposed via fcp(plugin talking with KeyExplorer/KeyUtils), this should not be a problem. A 'raw single block inserter' can be added too. http://github.com/saces/KeyUtils http://github.com/saces/KeyUtils/issues MfG saces ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Ian Clarke i...@locut.us wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Evan Daniel eva...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ian Clarke i...@locut.us wrote: I'm sorry if it appears that way, but this has been discussed on-and-off for quite a long time. Normally stuff only gets done with Freenet when someone goes ahead and does it. Sitting around waiting for permission rarely gets anything done. Well, merely looking at your recent emails, it looks (to me) more like you've decided what we're doing, whether others like it or not, rather than starting work and asking for input. Starting work and asking for input was precisely what I did in the email that started this entire thread. My impression from later messages in the thread was that when people had comments, you tended to overrule them or dismiss them. I don't think this would be so much of a problem, except it sounds like you expect other people to help write code while telling them you plan to throw out what they've been working on already. For example, there's been a significant amount of UI work and discussion of same on Freetalk -- why are you announcing that the plan (which isn't so much the plan as your plan at present, afaics) involves throwing all that out and starting over, rather than participating in that discussion? I think there's a big difference between saying here's what I've done, what do you think? and here's what I've done, and what I expect everyone else to do in the future, what do you think? even when the amount of prior input from other people is the same. Also, you should let your wife talk to us :) I'd rather hear what she has to say directly; there's no point in playing Telephone here. I've suggested that she join in, but she isn't a huge fan of the rough-and-tumble of Freenet's mailing lists. Hopefully she will. Ian. To be really blunt (and yes, I realize that's probably part of the problem), I suggest that you should work on fixing that problem rather than avoiding it. I won't pretend to know how to go about doing that (hopefully you have some ideas?), but I think it would help if you lead by example. I haven't been criticizing what you're trying to do, and personally I don't have much of an issue with how you've done it. What I've been trying to say is that it looks to me like you ruffled some feathers, as an outside observer who's mostly neutral, I think I can make a decent guess as to why. I'd far rather have you call people out for bad behavior as required (myself included, if needed) than have you decide it's easier to let the development culture keep driving away much-needed expertise. Or making gentle suggestions, or whatever you think best, but I suspect others share my opinion: subtlety and tact are nice, but can be ineffective when the problem is a lack of them. And I'm serious about wanting to hear your wife's words directly. It would be helpful to be able to distinguish your ideas and opinions from hers. Evan Daniel ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] FCPv2 and raw data (feature request)
On Thursday 11 February 2010 21:30:06 bo-le wrote: Am Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2010 18:21:44 schrieb Martin 'The Bishop' Scheffler: hello freenetters, i intend to write an external tool to request and insert raw keys, very much like the KeyExplorer does inside the node. I've overlooked the FCPv2 documentation, but found no clue. so, how do i get access to the raw data - without redirects, manifests et al? good byte 'single block raw get',.., 'splitfileget from deep in container' can be exposed via fcp(plugin talking with KeyExplorer/KeyUtils), this should not be a problem. can be exposed means it is not so far? A 'raw single block inserter' can be added too. same question. http://github.com/saces/KeyUtils http://github.com/saces/KeyUtils/issues well, i will try this. but anyway, i think it should go to the core functionality of FCPv2. i need to have full control over freenet data without more dependencies than installing fred. good byte p.s. the main reason for this request is that i am disappointed with the splitfile handling code inside fred. and i want to do it better without java ;) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Evan Daniel eva...@gmail.com wrote: Starting work and asking for input was precisely what I did in the email that started this entire thread. My impression from later messages in the thread was that when people had comments, you tended to overrule them or dismiss them. I really wish, rather than critiquing my tone, you would respond to the specific arguments I've made in favor of a fresh start with the UI. All I've done is made a proposal, and defended it when people have made comments I don't agree with. That isn't overruling or dismissing, its called discussing, and its exactly what we should be doing. I don't think this would be so much of a problem, except it sounds like you expect other people to help write code while telling them you plan to throw out what they've been working on already. Firstly, all I've done is made a proposal, and defended that proposal, I'm not dictating anything to anyone. The reality however is that FProxy is a mess. We've basically implemented our own web framework, and it violates almost every rule of good web framework design. We've got HTML structures implemented in Java code, and no convenient support for AJAX, among other flaws. If you disagree with this observation then say so, and let's debate it. But if you accept that FProxy has serious and fundamental flaws, then it makes perfect sense to replace it with a pre-existing open source web framework that has elegantly solved all of these problems. GWT is the best candidate for this I've found. I know a lot of work has gone into FProxy, but that fact alone cannot prevent us from considering the pros and cons of replacing it. We've thrown out a lot of code over the years with Freenet, its an essential part of software development. Regardless, nothing will get thrown out any time soon, we'll be lucky if we get a new UI for Freenet 0.9. For example, there's been a significant amount of UI work and discussion of same on Freetalk -- why are you announcing that the plan (which isn't so much the plan as your plan at present, afaics) involves throwing all that out and starting over, rather than participating in that discussion? This isn't the plan, this is a plan that I'm seeking feedback on. I think there's a big difference between saying here's what I've done, what do you think? and here's what I've done, and what I expect everyone else to do in the future, what do you think? even when the amount of prior input from other people is the same. Its not what I expect people to do, its what the plan requires *if* people accept it. Would you prefer that I pretend that replacing the UI required nobody to do anything? I've suggested that she join in, but she isn't a huge fan of the rough-and-tumble of Freenet's mailing lists. Hopefully she will. Ian. To be really blunt (and yes, I realize that's probably part of the problem), I suggest that you should work on fixing that problem rather than avoiding it. I won't pretend to know how to go about doing that (hopefully you have some ideas?), but I think it would help if you lead by example. I haven't been criticizing what you're trying to do, and personally I don't have much of an issue with how you've done it. What I've been trying to say is that it looks to me like you ruffled some feathers, as an outside observer who's mostly neutral, I think I can make a decent guess as to why. All I've done is proposed that we improve our UI, made an argument for why doing this properly requires replacing fproxy's current infrastructure, and argued that GWT is the best candidate for a replacement web framework. The reality is that FProxy is a mess, we've basically implemented our own web framework, and its not a good one. We have HTML constructs embedded directly in code, which is always a bad idea. Sooner or later our web interface needs a reboot to address these architectural deficiencies, and I don't think there is any advantage to pretending that this isn't the case. And I'm serious about wanting to hear your wife's words directly. It would be helpful to be able to distinguish your ideas and opinions from hers. I don't think she has any interest in discussing anything other than feedback on the proposed redesign. Certainly she has absolutely no interest in getting involved in a meta-debate like this one. I'll try to persuade her to chime in, but if you actually had specific questions for her it may help. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: i...@sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Ian Clarke i...@locut.us wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Evan Daniel eva...@gmail.com wrote: Starting work and asking for input was precisely what I did in the email that started this entire thread. My impression from later messages in the thread was that when people had comments, you tended to overrule them or dismiss them. I really wish, rather than critiquing my tone, you would respond to the specific arguments I've made in favor of a fresh start with the UI. All I've done is made a proposal, and defended it when people have made comments I don't agree with. That isn't overruling or dismissing, its called discussing, and its exactly what we should be doing. I didn't jump into this thread intending to critique your tone. I was trying to say something like Hey Ian, it looks like you're stepping on a lot more toes than I think you meant to or need to. Perhaps you should look into that? But, as with nearly all writing on the Internet, it seems to have been read in a different light than I intended it. I've said everything I have to say on the specifics: I think FProxy is in need of an overhaul, I think input from someone who actually knows how to design UIs would be wonderful, and I see nothing obviously objectionable in the mockup. If you want detailed comments from me, I need something clickable. Failing that, give me design documents, and I can comment on those instead. If it's too early in the process for that, that's fine; I don't mind waiting while work progresses to that stage. I don't think this would be so much of a problem, except it sounds like you expect other people to help write code while telling them you plan to throw out what they've been working on already. Firstly, all I've done is made a proposal, and defended that proposal, I'm not dictating anything to anyone. Perhaps you haven't noticed, or perhaps it's just me, but it's my impression that everyone around here thinks that what you say goes, seeing as you're the official head of the project and the one in charge of the money. You're not the same as any other developer, and for better or worse your words won't be read in the same context. The reality however is that FProxy is a mess. We've basically implemented our own web framework, and it violates almost every rule of good web framework design. We've got HTML structures implemented in Java code, and no convenient support for AJAX, among other flaws. If you disagree with this observation then say so, and let's debate it. I agree. I think a completely new UI would be wonderful. I think the best way to do that would be to develop the new UI as a separate branch, bring it up to parity or near-parity with current FProxy in functionality, and then switch over. But, as I'm not the one who will be writing the code, I really don't object if those who are want to do it differently (for example, toad's idea of gradually migrating FProxy to be the new idea). However, I do think it would be a bad idea to try to support two different UIs at the same time for the general community. But if you accept that FProxy has serious and fundamental flaws, then it makes perfect sense to replace it with a pre-existing open source web framework that has elegantly solved all of these problems. GWT is the best candidate for this I've found. GWT may be best, but IMHO the lack of a way to build it cleanly should be treated as blocking level bug on inclusion. We aren't so desperate for a way to generate HTML that it makes sense to take a step backwards on having Freenet be dependent only on Free software. But we've been down that path before, and afaict your mind is made up. Also, I think it's quite important that whatever we end up with, it behave well with js and cookies turned off. (Some things like Freetalk login requiring cookies makes sense; I don't see a way to avoid that. But we should minimize the number of such things where possible.) I don't think that's a particularly hard requirement, provided we pay attention to it. (Note that I'm not saying we can't use them; just that it should degrade well, without losing any functionality.) I know a lot of work has gone into FProxy, but that fact alone cannot prevent us from considering the pros and cons of replacing it. We've thrown out a lot of code over the years with Freenet, its an essential part of software development. Regardless, nothing will get thrown out any time soon, we'll be lucky if we get a new UI for Freenet 0.9. For example, there's been a significant amount of UI work and discussion of same on Freetalk -- why are you announcing that the plan (which isn't so much the plan as your plan at present, afaics) involves throwing all that out and starting over, rather than participating in that discussion? This isn't the plan, this is a plan that I'm seeking feedback on. I think there's a big difference between saying here's what
Re: [freenet-dev] FCPv2 and raw data (feature request)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Martin 'The Bishop' Scheffler the_bis...@web.de wrote: On Thursday 11 February 2010 21:30:06 bo-le wrote: Am Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2010 18:21:44 schrieb Martin 'The Bishop' Scheffler: hello freenetters, i intend to write an external tool to request and insert raw keys, very much like the KeyExplorer does inside the node. I've overlooked the FCPv2 documentation, but found no clue. so, how do i get access to the raw data - without redirects, manifests et al? good byte 'single block raw get',.., 'splitfileget from deep in container' can be exposed via fcp(plugin talking with KeyExplorer/KeyUtils), this should not be a problem. can be exposed means it is not so far? A 'raw single block inserter' can be added too. same question. http://github.com/saces/KeyUtils http://github.com/saces/KeyUtils/issues well, i will try this. but anyway, i think it should go to the core functionality of FCPv2. i need to have full control over freenet data without more dependencies than installing fred. good byte p.s. the main reason for this request is that i am disappointed with the splitfile handling code inside fred. and i want to do it better without java ;) What are you trying to change? Splitfile internals shouldn't be part of the Freenet API, imho. If you're trying to do better reporting of the status of blocks to the user or something, then that should be added to FCP and exposed, not the internals. If you're actually trying to handle splitfiles outside of Fred, I think that's a bad idea. For example, I'm currently working on the math for changes to the splitfile internals. Having external programs in use that hook deeply into the splitfile code would mean that improving splitfiles would break things, which is a bad position to be in. (Also, your mail client seems to be breaking the threading for me.) Evan Daniel ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Evan Daniel eva...@gmail.com wrote: I've said everything I have to say on the specifics: I think FProxy is in need of an overhaul, I think input from someone who actually knows how to design UIs would be wonderful, and I see nothing obviously objectionable in the mockup. If you want detailed comments from me, I need something clickable. Failing that, give me design documents, and I can comment on those instead. If it's too early in the process for that, that's fine; I don't mind waiting while work progresses to that stage. I don't think this would be so much of a problem, except it sounds like you expect other people to help write code while telling them you plan to throw out what they've been working on already. Firstly, all I've done is made a proposal, and defended that proposal, I'm not dictating anything to anyone. Perhaps you haven't noticed, or perhaps it's just me, but it's my impression that everyone around here thinks that what you say goes, seeing as you're the official head of the project and the one in charge of the money. Hah, well I don't think I've ever been dictatorial, and decisions are made frequently that I disagree with, by Toad and others. Perhaps Toad can think of examples, but I don't recall ever forcing him to do something he thought was the wrong course of action, just because I officially control the purse strings. I agree. I think a completely new UI would be wonderful. I think the best way to do that would be to develop the new UI as a separate branch, bring it up to parity or near-parity with current FProxy in functionality, and then switch over. Well that is more or less the plan, except I don't think it needs to be parity, because there is a lot of functionality in fproxy that is mainly for developers and not useful to most users, and I don't think we need to wait for it to be implemented to switch to a UI that is better in every other way. But, as I'm not the one who will be writing the code, I really don't object if those who are want to do it differently (for example, toad's idea of gradually migrating FProxy to be the new idea). I do disagree with a gradual migration, FProxy is fundamentally flawed for reasons I've already mentioned, and a piecemeal migration will be a lot more work and is likely to have a much worse outcome. Further, neither my wife nor any other designer will be interested in just doing a piecemeal migration. To get the most value out of a designer you need to give them a blank slate. However, I do think it would be a bad idea to try to support two different UIs at the same time for the general community. I think some degree of parallelization is inevitable. If we wait until the new UI provides every last piece of functionality that fproxy does, it will never happen. But if you accept that FProxy has serious and fundamental flaws, then it makes perfect sense to replace it with a pre-existing open source web framework that has elegantly solved all of these problems. GWT is the best candidate for this I've found. GWT may be best, but IMHO the lack of a way to build it cleanly should be treated as blocking level bug on inclusion. We aren't so desperate for a way to generate HTML that it makes sense to take a step backwards on having Freenet be dependent only on Free software. But we've been down that path before, and afaict your mind is made up. I must be forgetting something. What is the problem with building GWT? AFAIK, the entire stack is open source. Also, I think it's quite important that whatever we end up with, it behave well with js and cookies turned off. Easy to say, not easy to do. This requirement doubles (or worse) the complexity of any new UI. My opinion is that if Google can deploy mass-consumer software that relies on Javascript, then so can we. I don't buy the security argument for not permitting Javascript because we can allow Javascript in the UI without allowing it in pages downloaded from Freenet. If someone feels strongly enough about having a lynx-friendly interface to Freenet then they should work on one (or continue to maintain fproxy), but it shouldn't hold back progress for everyone else. (Some things like Freetalk login requiring cookies makes sense; I don't see a way to avoid that. But we should minimize the number of such things where possible.) I don't think that's a particularly hard requirement, provided we pay attention to it. (Note that I'm not saying we can't use them; just that it should degrade well, without losing any functionality.) I don't think I can agree with this. You're basically saying that we should double or maybe even triple the complexity of implementing the UI to accomodate a tiny minority of users that, for whatever reason, can't or won't enable Javascript and cookies in their browser. That doesn't make sense. If that constituency wants to implement a lite
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Ian Clarke i...@locut.us wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Evan Daniel eva...@gmail.com wrote: I've said everything I have to say on the specifics: I think FProxy is in need of an overhaul, I think input from someone who actually knows how to design UIs would be wonderful, and I see nothing obviously objectionable in the mockup. If you want detailed comments from me, I need something clickable. Failing that, give me design documents, and I can comment on those instead. If it's too early in the process for that, that's fine; I don't mind waiting while work progresses to that stage. I don't think this would be so much of a problem, except it sounds like you expect other people to help write code while telling them you plan to throw out what they've been working on already. Firstly, all I've done is made a proposal, and defended that proposal, I'm not dictating anything to anyone. Perhaps you haven't noticed, or perhaps it's just me, but it's my impression that everyone around here thinks that what you say goes, seeing as you're the official head of the project and the one in charge of the money. Hah, well I don't think I've ever been dictatorial, and decisions are made frequently that I disagree with, by Toad and others. Perhaps Toad can think of examples, but I don't recall ever forcing him to do something he thought was the wrong course of action, just because I officially control the purse strings. It's all about impressions. What you say has a different context, even if the words are the same. At least, that's my impression. I agree. I think a completely new UI would be wonderful. I think the best way to do that would be to develop the new UI as a separate branch, bring it up to parity or near-parity with current FProxy in functionality, and then switch over. Well that is more or less the plan, except I don't think it needs to be parity, because there is a lot of functionality in fproxy that is mainly for developers and not useful to most users, and I don't think we need to wait for it to be implemented to switch to a UI that is better in every other way. 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. I don't think it needs to be complete parity, just close to it. Once it's close enough, switch over. If people need some of the missing functionality, they can add it in. I just think trying to maintain two separate UIs, both in a usable state, is a really bad idea. But, as I'm not the one who will be writing the code, I really don't object if those who are want to do it differently (for example, toad's idea of gradually migrating FProxy to be the new idea). I do disagree with a gradual migration, FProxy is fundamentally flawed for reasons I've already mentioned, and a piecemeal migration will be a lot more work and is likely to have a much worse outcome. Further, neither my wife nor any other designer will be interested in just doing a piecemeal migration. To get the most value out of a designer you need to give them a blank slate. However, I do think it would be a bad idea to try to support two different UIs at the same time for the general community. I think some degree of parallelization is inevitable. If we wait until the new UI provides every last piece of functionality that fproxy does, it will never happen. But if you accept that FProxy has serious and fundamental flaws, then it makes perfect sense to replace it with a pre-existing open source web framework that has elegantly solved all of these problems. GWT is the best candidate for this I've found. GWT may be best, but IMHO the lack of a way to build it cleanly should be treated as blocking level bug on inclusion. We aren't so desperate for a way to generate HTML that it makes sense to take a step backwards on having Freenet be dependent only on Free software. But we've been down that path before, and afaict your mind is made up. I must be forgetting something. What is the problem with building GWT? AFAIK, the entire stack is open source. First, I haven't actually tried to build it (and don't intend to, given what I've heard). If someone who has cares to speak up, go with what they have to say. My understanding is that it's nominally open source, but that the build relies on a lot of binary jars. And those rely on other jars, etc. So, in theory you could build it. In practice, there are no instructions and I haven't heard anyone profess to knowing how (despite making the attempt). Also, I think it's quite important that whatever we end up with, it behave well with js and cookies turned off. Easy to say, not easy to do. This requirement doubles (or worse) the complexity of any new UI. My opinion is that if
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
I don't know how to be more clear: I don't know. Just as I probably wouldn't be able to tell you whether I liked a painting from a description of it, I don't know how to tell you whether I like a UI without actually clicking on it. I don't see anything obviously objectionable. I think you should proceed, and I'll chime in when I have something to add. On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Evan Daniel eva...@gmail.com wrote: Well that is more or less the plan, except I don't think it needs to be parity, because there is a lot of functionality in fproxy that is mainly for developers and not useful to most users, and I don't think we need to wait for it to be implemented to switch to a UI that is better in every other way. 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. I must be forgetting something. What is the problem with building GWT? AFAIK, the entire stack is open source. First, I haven't actually tried to build it (and don't intend to, given what I've heard). If someone who has cares to speak up, go with what they have to say. 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. That doesn't make sense. If that constituency wants to implement a lite UI for Freenet then they should, but this shouldn't become a requirement that holds back (and may-well kill) any substantive advance in our UI for the rest of us. It's a small minority of computer users. It's a significant minority of Freenet users. Remember, you've intentionally selected for as paranoid a userbase as possible. You're at the extreme non-paranoid end of the curve, if the people wandering into IRC are anything to judge by. We should be concerned with legitimately paranoid people, but not irrationally paranoid people. Using a Javascript-enabled browser like Chrome in privacy mode is no less secure than using any other browser if we filter Javascript downloaded over Freenet (as we already do). You're suggesting that we dramatically increase the amount of work involved in creating any new UI to cater to the irrationally paranoid. I don't agree. Besides, so far I haven't heard mention of anything where js is required for functionality. I've heard plenty of suggestions for ways it improves the user experience; I absolutely think we should use it for that. Just make sure it degrades gracefully. Making sure it degrades gracefully vastly increases the amount of work required, essentially requiring that we implement a parallel non-JS GUI. I don't agree that this is necessary. If some people want it, they are welcome to implement it themselves, but it shouldn't hold up the UI for everyone else. Perhaps its a cultural issue, but I see no problem with robust debate, provided that it stays on-topic, is based on facts not ego, and doesn't descend into ad-hominem. If you are aware of specific examples where the project has been hurt by the culture on these lists, then you should bring it to our attention, but I just don't see it. If your wife is unwilling to speak on the email list about it, that should be a sufficient example. Its not that she is unwilling, she just doesn't see the point, since most of the discussion is meta stuff, rather than useful feedback on the proposed design. Saying that you can't offer feedback on the design until you have a working UI is ridiculous. Static wireframes are a very common way to present an initial draft of a UI, and most people have no trouble using a little imagination to form an opinion on it. Most user interfaces are at a very late stage of the design process before you can actually interact with them. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: i...@sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Ian Clarke i...@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. I must be forgetting something. What is the problem with building GWT? AFAIK, the entire stack is open source. First, I haven't actually tried to build it (and don't intend to, given what I've heard). If someone who has cares to speak up, go with what they have to say. 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. I believe they're both available in Gentoo and Debian, both of which require a clean build from source, iirc. (javac in the form of OpenJDK, which Freenet runs just fine on afaik.) 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. Anyway, as I said already, I don't see much point in arguing if your mind is made up. Evan Daniel ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Evan Daniel eva...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Ian Clarke i...@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. 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 :-) Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: i...@sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Adaptation not apocalypse was Re: Some (very) preliminary mock-ups of new UI
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Ian Clarke i...@locut.us wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Evan Daniel eva...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Ian Clarke i...@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 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
