Good Afternoon,
As part of an unrelated forum project that I'm building, I put together a
project to use a SHA hash to create robot-avatars, called RoboHash.
(RoboHash.org). This is similar to the identicons that are currently being
used in FreeTalk, but it's designed to be easier to remember
Good Afternoon,
As part of an unrelated forum project that I'm building, I put together a
project to use a SHA hash to create robot-avatars, called RoboHash.
(RoboHash.org). This is similar to the identicons that are currently being
used in FreeTalk, but it's designed to be easier to remember
They've gotten dramatically more specific as time as gone on.
All major games/movies have their own wiki, plus TV shows, etc.
The guidelines no longer have the whole "Create a wiki in staging, then
attempt to have it promoted", it appears to be just general Mediawiki
hosting at this point.
http:
They've gotten dramatically more specific as time as gone on.
All major games/movies have their own wiki, plus TV shows, etc.
The guidelines no longer have the whole "Create a wiki in staging, then
attempt to have it promoted", it appears to be just general Mediawiki
hosting at this point.
http:
Per-
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/releasenotes/Java/JavaSnowLeopardRN/JavaSnowLeopardRN.pdf
Mac OS X 10.6 contains an Apple-provided Java SE 6 version of 1.6.0_15
for both 32 and 64-bit Intel architectures.
Ximin Luo wrote:
> xor wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 03:43:34
Per-
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/releasenotes/Java/JavaSnowLeopardRN/JavaSnowLeopardRN.pdf
Mac OS X 10.6 contains an Apple-provided Java SE 6 version of 1.6.0_15
for both 32 and 64-bit Intel architectures.
Ximin Luo wrote:
> xor wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 03:43:34
> Of course, I've never really understood why people love these web
> forums so much, they are a usability nightmare a lot of the time :-/
>
After a community grows to a certain size, having dictatorial control is
necessary in order to prevent chaos.
I've always preferred Usenet, but discussion
> Of course, I've never really understood why people love these web
> forums so much, they are a usability nightmare a lot of the time :-/
>
After a community grows to a certain size, having dictatorial control is
necessary in order to prevent chaos.
I've always preferred Usenet, but discussion
Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> What's the difference? The official one should be from the build01228 tag,
> the staging one can be auto-built if you think that is wise (you might want
> to sandbox it a bit).
>
>
I'd like to reiterate that it would be best to give Matthew a way to
build this o
Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> What's the difference? The official one should be from the build01228 tag,
> the staging one can be auto-built if you think that is wise (you might want
> to sandbox it a bit).
>
>
I'd like to reiterate that it would be best to give Matthew a way to
build this o
Great work putting together this package! It looks like it does a very
good job in following Debian standards, particularly when it comes to
bundling the docs.
I had put together a very simple package in March ( See
http://archives.freenetproject.org/message/20090621.204854.22bccb0b.ja.html
)
Great work putting together this package! It looks like it does a very
good job in following Debian standards, particularly when it comes to
bundling the docs.
I had put together a very simple package in March ( See
http://archives.freenetproject.org/message/20090621.204854.22bccb0b.ja.html
)
t;> be hackers and spammers, who actually need to have full anonymous
>> access to
>> the internet.
>> So probably it is better to leave it "just HTTP" for now.
>
> The proposal is that it would not be anonymous at all, at least
> initially.
>>
&g
t;> be hackers and spammers, who actually need to have full anonymous
>> access to
>> the internet.
>> So probably it is better to leave it "just HTTP" for now.
>
> The proposal is that it would not be anonymous at all, at least
> initially.
>>
&g
I think Matthew's Proposal is a great idea-
I don't think that Freenet should do a general port proxy though, Alex.
The big difference from a user-standpoint is that for HTTP, they can
just enter a URL into their browser, and it'll connect and pull over the
page. They don't need to set prox
I think Matthew's Proposal is a great idea-
I don't think that Freenet should do a general port proxy though, Alex.
The big difference from a user-standpoint is that for HTTP, they can
just enter a URL into their browser, and it'll connect and pull over the
page. They don't need to set prox
>> How would a new user find out about such software? It doesn't look
>> obvious from the front page of the site to me. Frost and FMS have
>> links from the "discussion" tab on the node page, but jSite and
>> Thingamablog don't. There's some info on the "documentation" page of
>> the freenetpro
>> How would a new user find out about such software? It doesn't look
>> obvious from the front page of the site to me. Frost and FMS have
>> links from the "discussion" tab on the node page, but jSite and
>> Thingamablog don't. There's some info on the "documentation" page of
>> the freenetpro
> Ah, no, nothing intentional, it wasn't intended to be the "official"
> screenshot,
> so I just went the easiest way.
> Once I know which screenshot will be used, I'll fix that (which will also fix
> the fact that it looks ugly on small connections when the css isn't loaded
> yet).
>
Just
> Ah, no, nothing intentional, it wasn't intended to be the "official"
> screenshot,
> so I just went the easiest way.
> Once I know which screenshot will be used, I'll fix that (which will also fix
> the fact that it looks ugly on small connections when the css isn't loaded
> yet).
>
Just
I really do think this site looks great. Much more visually appealing
than the current endeavor, and more importantly, likely to drive people
to huge download button.
One question on the screenshot- It looks like you're including the
entire full-size screenshot, then shrinking it in the browse
I really do think this site looks great. Much more visually appealing
than the current endeavor, and more importantly, likely to drive people
to huge download button.
One question on the screenshot- It looks like you're including the
entire full-size screenshot, then shrinking it in the browse
> It turns out to be easier to just generate it and post it here:
>
> http://amphibian.dyndns.org/freenet/newsite/
>
> Is it acceptable? Can we deploy it on the main site?
>
>
That does look very slick.
Two quick thoughts-
* It might be nice to include multiple screenshots, and link
> It turns out to be easier to just generate it and post it here:
>
> http://amphibian.dyndns.org/freenet/newsite/
>
> Is it acceptable? Can we deploy it on the main site?
>
>
That does look very slick.
Two quick thoughts-
* It might be nice to include multiple screenshots, and link
> IIRC nextgens had some issues with this? If it is of adequate quality we
> should host it ... however, all the installers now include all the
> dependancies bundled (for what are IMHO several good reasons), I don't think
> we should make the ubuntu .deb the exception; it should include the fi
> IIRC nextgens had some issues with this? If it is of adequate quality we
> should host it ... however, all the installers now include all the
> dependancies bundled (for what are IMHO several good reasons), I don't think
> we should make the ubuntu .deb the exception; it should include the fi
7;s just a simple bit of script so it doesn't matter ;)
Feel free to commit it for me, if you'd like. I can funnel any needed
changes through you.
-CPD
On Jun 21, 2009, at 1:09 PM, xor wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2009 19:16:46 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> On Wednesday 04 February 20
7;s just a simple bit of script so it doesn't matter ;)
Feel free to commit it for me, if you'd like. I can funnel any needed
changes through you.
-CPD
On Jun 21, 2009, at 1:09 PM, xor wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2009 19:16:46 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> On Wednesday 04 February 20
As an aside, Matthew had asked in the past about reducing the number of
connections from the browser to the node.
Digg's new library may be able to assist- It breaks images into data uris,
and then inlines them.
Even if Freenet doesn't want to use the library, inlining images as Data
URIs may imp
As an aside, Matthew had asked in the past about reducing the number of
connections from the browser to the node.
Digg's new library may be able to assist- It breaks images into data uris,
and then inlines them.
Even if Freenet doesn't want to use the library, inlining images as Data
URIs may imp
As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
> Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command
> line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already
> open, there are t
We could probe on the main fproxy page, in the same place we have the IE
warning, IIRC.
If they switch it off after that, it's their business; They turned it
on, and they can turn it off.
> I'm assuming that once you have switched "privacy mode" off, websites can't
> probe links you've visited
As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
> Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command
> line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already
> open, there are t
We could probe on the main fproxy page, in the same place we have the IE
warning, IIRC.
If they switch it off after that, it's their business; They turned it
on, and they can turn it off.
> I'm assuming that once you have switched "privacy mode" off, websites can't
> probe links you've visited
The most reliable way to detect incognito mode is to use the CSS detect
trick.
If we can detect their CSS links followed, they are not in privacy mode.
http://crypto.stanford.edu/~collinj/research/incognito/
-CPD
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote:
>
>> Matt
The most reliable way to detect incognito mode is to use the CSS detect
trick.
If we can detect their CSS links followed, they are not in privacy mode.
http://crypto.stanford.edu/~collinj/research/incognito/
-CPD
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote:
>
>> Matt
Just one question from a user-perspective, if you'll permit it.
Would taking it on as your Thesis project mean that you wouldn't be
able to take contributions from other people toward the WoT and
Freetalk?
I know that there have been various proposals from freenet message
systems to work to
Just one question from a user-perspective, if you'll permit it.
Would taking it on as your Thesis project mean that you wouldn't be
able to take contributions from other people toward the WoT and
Freetalk?
I know that there have been various proposals from freenet message
systems to work to
I don't know if these are useful for anyone use, but I needed to
deploy Freenet across several machines last night, so I made up a
quick Ubuntu package.
http://sq7.org/colin/freenet.deb
After downloading, you can install with dpkg -i freenet.deb. This will
then run the updater and pull in th
I don't know if these are useful for anyone use, but I needed to
deploy Freenet across several machines last night, so I made up a
quick Ubuntu package.
http://sq7.org/colin/freenet.deb
After downloading, you can install with dpkg -i freenet.deb. This will
then run the updater and pull in th
>>
>
> We are prefetching them already. And we have a config option for that.
> It's just too slow.
I know I'm being terrible dense, but I don't see how this makes sense.
Matthew had mentioned that the concern stemmed from the fact that the
browser had a lmited number of connections to each hos
> CAVEATS:
> - I'm really not convinced that the basic progress screen on its own
> will
> yield adequate performance. It could be improved significantly by some
> javascript, but the real worry is once a page has loaded, it may
> have inline
> images which are over 64k and therefore not in the
>>
>
> We are prefetching them already. And we have a config option for that.
> It's just too slow.
I know I'm being terrible dense, but I don't see how this makes sense.
Matthew had mentioned that the concern stemmed from the fact that the
browser had a lmited number of connections to each hos
> CAVEATS:
> - I'm really not convinced that the basic progress screen on its own
> will
> yield adequate performance. It could be improved significantly by some
> javascript, but the real worry is once a page has loaded, it may
> have inline
> images which are over 64k and therefore not in the
ber 2008 18:14, Colin Davis wrote:
>> I really think option 2 is the by FAR the most user friendly, for quite
>> a few reasons-
>>
>> 1) Software shouldn't be ill-behaved. I'm a large advocate of and for
>> Freenet, and even I get quite annoyed when freene
ber 2008 18:14, Colin Davis wrote:
>> I really think option 2 is the by FAR the most user friendly, for quite
>> a few reasons-
>>
>> 1) Software shouldn't be ill-behaved. I'm a large advocate of and for
>> Freenet, and even I get quite annoyed when freene
I really think option 2 is the by FAR the most user friendly, for quite
a few reasons-
1) Software shouldn't be ill-behaved. I'm a large advocate of and for
Freenet, and even I get quite annoyed when freenet alters Firefox by
creating a new profile. I understand the rationale, but one software
I really think option 2 is the by FAR the most user friendly, for quite
a few reasons-
1) Software shouldn't be ill-behaved. I'm a large advocate of and for
Freenet, and even I get quite annoyed when freenet alters Firefox by
creating a new profile. I understand the rationale, but one software
It's an interesting Milestone for the project that most of the tasks
that are being undertaken are UI/user focused.
Reduce Ram, fix the installer, improve help docs, fix auto-updates, add
messageboards, etc.
Just interesting to compare to the runup to .7, which was all about
features, and getti
It's an interesting Milestone for the project that most of the tasks
that are being undertaken are UI/user focused.
Reduce Ram, fix the installer, improve help docs, fix auto-updates, add
messageboards, etc.
Just interesting to compare to the runup to .7, which was all about
features, and getti
Zero3- I appreciate the suggestions you've made, and I'm sorry that
you seem to be butting heads a bit.
I tend to agree with you that the installer should default to having
as much as a user might reasonably need- To my eyes, this includes at
the very least the Librarian plugin, since I thin
Zero3- I appreciate the suggestions you've made, and I'm sorry that
you seem to be butting heads a bit.
I tend to agree with you that the installer should default to having
as much as a user might reasonably need- To my eyes, this includes at
the very least the Librarian plugin, since I thin
This is a really excellent idea. Using a small picture for a background
logo, this page could give the user the impression "Freenet is looking
for the file you requested, but hasn't found it yet."
This will look much better, and it would let the user know that Freenet
isn't not-responding, it's
> I'd argue that if the user knows about any autorun location at all, the
> start menu will be the one. Most Windows users probably don't even know
> what the service MMC snap-in is (:s), where the functionality of "Start
> -> All programs -> Start" seems a bit more easy to "comprehend". Users
This is a really excellent idea. Using a small picture for a background
logo, this page could give the user the impression "Freenet is looking
for the file you requested, but hasn't found it yet."
This will look much better, and it would let the user know that Freenet
isn't not-responding, it's
I absolutely appreciate the spirit of the suggestion- Making things more
clear to the user is usually a good idea, but this suggestion doesn't
help users as much as it seems to.
While I agree that it does make things a bit clearer, it only does so to
a certain sub-section of users-
Those
> I'd argue that if the user knows about any autorun location at all, the
> start menu will be the one. Most Windows users probably don't even know
> what the service MMC snap-in is (:s), where the functionality of "Start
> -> All programs -> Start" seems a bit more easy to "comprehend". Users
I absolutely appreciate the spirit of the suggestion- Making things more
clear to the user is usually a good idea, but this suggestion doesn't
help users as much as it seems to.
While I agree that it does make things a bit clearer, it only does so to
a certain sub-section of users-
Those
> IMHO we should always download the opennet seednodes. The file is very small,
> it's not a big overhead. And the auto-start option ... we probably can't turn
> it off from the wizard, but we could create a "Disable auto-starting Freenet"
> option on the start menu.
>
>
> IMHO we should always download the opennet seednodes. The file is very small,
> it's not a big overhead. And the auto-start option ... we probably can't turn
> it off from the wizard, but we could create a "Disable auto-starting Freenet"
> option on the start menu.
>
>
Your state of the project post has me thinking about Freemail- I think
that the system is a really nice idea, and I love the fact that you can
connect to a standard Mail client, but I think it might be best to
retire the system in favor of a modified version of Freetalk.
The primary reason I f
Your state of the project post has me thinking about Freemail- I think
that the system is a really nice idea, and I love the fact that you can
connect to a standard Mail client, but I think it might be best to
retire the system in favor of a modified version of Freetalk.
The primary reason I f
>
> 4) Minor issues-
>
>
One more-
A lot of people already publish content online... A Lot of it. They have
a twitter feed, a Blog, maybe a Facebook and Myspace page..
We should have an option that says "Already have a website? Great! Enter
the URL here to mirror it to Freenet"- It could then
I worry that right now, Freenet doesn't provide a very good first user
experience- I worry that this leads to frequent installation of the tool
out of curiosity, and then subsequent uninstallation when the user can't
find anything fun to do with Freenet.
The main problem is that Freenet is mar
>
> 4) Minor issues-
>
>
One more-
A lot of people already publish content online... A Lot of it. They have
a twitter feed, a Blog, maybe a Facebook and Myspace page..
We should have an option that says "Already have a website? Great! Enter
the URL here to mirror it to Freenet"- It could then
I worry that right now, Freenet doesn't provide a very good first user
experience- I worry that this leads to frequent installation of the tool
out of curiosity, and then subsequent uninstallation when the user can't
find anything fun to do with Freenet.
The main problem is that Freenet is mar
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 23 May 2008 17:25, Colin Davis wrote:
>
>> What about using Prism/Webrunner, rather than XULrunner or a customized
>> profile?
>> http://labs.mozilla.com/2007/10/prism/
>>
>> It creates a quick single-window webbrowser, w
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 23 May 2008 17:25, Colin Davis wrote:
>
>> What about using Prism/Webrunner, rather than XULrunner or a customized
>> profile?
>> http://labs.mozilla.com/2007/10/prism/
>>
>> It creates a quick single-window webbrowser, w
What about using Prism/Webrunner, rather than XULrunner or a customized
profile?
http://labs.mozilla.com/2007/10/prism/
It creates a quick single-window webbrowser, with system integration for
icons, system tray, etc.
You can ship the customizations such as number of connections in the
included
What about using Prism/Webrunner, rather than XULrunner or a customized
profile?
http://labs.mozilla.com/2007/10/prism/
It creates a quick single-window webbrowser, with system integration for
icons, system tray, etc.
You can ship the customizations such as number of connections in the
included
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
>
>>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
>>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
>>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps.
>>>
>> Heh
> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
> no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
> use sourceforge, or google code, or set up their own website.
>
>
For the same
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
>>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
>>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps
> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
> no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
> use sourceforge, or google code, or set up their own website.
>
>
For the same
Ian Clarke wrote:
> I do agree that bundling can make user's lives easier, but it should
> be >>client apps bundling Freenet<<, not the other way around.
>
> Ian.
>
>
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready
Ian Clarke wrote:
> I do agree that bundling can make user's lives easier, but it should
> be >>client apps bundling Freenet<<, not the other way around.
>
> Ian.
>
>
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready
Here's my stab-
Congratulations- Freenet is installed and running.
Freenet is currently contacting other Freenet users and integrating into
the network.
It will take a few minutes to make the initial connection, after which
you can begin using Freenet.
As Freenet connects to more and more other
Here's my stab-
Congratulations- Freenet is installed and running.
Freenet is currently contacting other Freenet users and integrating into
the network.
It will take a few minutes to make the initial connection, after which
you can begin using Freenet.
As Freenet connects to more and more other
I thought that Update over Mandatory was implemented at this point,
negating this problem?
Tommy[D] wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> you
> will need fast ways to get new versions to the user, else it could happen
> that he is out of freenet
> because of a too old version.
> -BEG
I thought that Update over Mandatory was implemented at this point,
negating this problem?
Tommy[D] wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> you
> will need fast ways to get new versions to the user, else it could happen
> that he is out of freenet
> because of a too old version.
> -BEG
If you want to avoid a distinct fingerprint, you could advocate
installing http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/
Granted, it's not the kindest software on external servers, but it's in
common use, and would set the connections much higher.
>
> As far as I remember we have always been asking users to chan
> Ideally we want an external profile option - something where the settings are
> kept outside of the firefox directory, where firefox will always default to
> the default profile, without asking the user.
>
>
Well.. If you wanted to go that way, you could use the -no-remote
option, which a
If you want to avoid a distinct fingerprint, you could advocate
installing http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/
Granted, it's not the kindest software on external servers, but it's in
common use, and would set the connections much higher.
>
> As far as I remember we have always been asking users to chan
> Not a bad idea, although it's an additional 6MB download, and one more thing
> to update (does it auto-update?). And it's windows specific: what would we do
> on linux and OS/X ?
>
>
Portable Firefox is what TorPark uses.
There is a version of Portable Firefox for Mac.
http://www.freesm
> Ideally we want an external profile option - something where the settings are
> kept outside of the firefox directory, where firefox will always default to
> the default profile, without asking the user.
>
>
Well.. If you wanted to go that way, you could use the -no-remote
option, which a
> Not a bad idea, although it's an additional 6MB download, and one more thing
> to update (does it auto-update?). And it's windows specific: what would we do
> on linux and OS/X ?
>
>
Portable Firefox is what TorPark uses.
There is a version of Portable Firefox for Mac.
http://www.freesm
> Both IE and Safari have *MAJOR* problems with Freenet. Safari waits for all
> the images to be loaded before even attempting to render the page; IE
> autodetects HTML even when it is told that a page is plain text (which is a
> major security breach as an attacker can then send unfiltered HTM
> Both IE and Safari have *MAJOR* problems with Freenet. Safari waits for all
> the images to be loaded before even attempting to render the page; IE
> autodetects HTML even when it is told that a page is plain text (which is a
> major security breach as an attacker can then send unfiltered HTM
As a ignorant user, I think that's as a general principal, Freenet
should try to be as browser agnostic as possible..
1) Firefox may not be the dominant browser down the line- Freenet
shouldn't constantly chase the tale of different browsers.
2) Most users don't use Firefox currently. Most gene
As a ignorant user, I think that's as a general principal, Freenet
should try to be as browser agnostic as possible..
1) Firefox may not be the dominant browser down the line- Freenet
shouldn't constantly chase the tale of different browsers.
2) Most users don't use Firefox currently. Most gene
27;s eligible to be
> a seednode and then, if it is, ask the user ?
>
>
> Colin Davis a ?crit :
>> I admit that I'm woefully ignorant when it comes to proper design,
>> and I'm not among the smartest people in the room.
>> That said, these don't seem
I admit that I'm woefully ignorant when it comes to proper design, and
I'm not among the smartest people in the room.
That said, these don't seem like difficult problems- Certainly it's
because I'm missing the complexity.
I think it the installer should present the option, because that's when
u
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> What makes you think that the number of seednodes is the problem?
> Announcement
> ensures that we mostly connect to nodes that aren't in the seednodes list..
>
Perhaps I'm off base-
It would seem that if there is a small collection of seednodes, then any
initial an
If we added a button to the installer to add yourself as a seednode,
perhaps we could offer a better collection of starting nodes.
Do you want to be added to Freenet Directory?
Adding yourself to the Freenet Directory will publicly publish your
connection information, so that new users can us
27;s eligible to be
> a seednode and then, if it is, ask the user ?
>
>
> Colin Davis a écrit :
>> I admit that I'm woefully ignorant when it comes to proper design,
>> and I'm not among the smartest people in the room.
>> That said, these don't seem
I admit that I'm woefully ignorant when it comes to proper design, and
I'm not among the smartest people in the room.
That said, these don't seem like difficult problems- Certainly it's
because I'm missing the complexity.
I think it the installer should present the option, because that's when
u
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> What makes you think that the number of seednodes is the problem?
> Announcement
> ensures that we mostly connect to nodes that aren't in the seednodes list..
>
Perhaps I'm off base-
It would seem that if there is a small collection of seednodes, then any
initial an
If we added a button to the installer to add yourself as a seednode,
perhaps we could offer a better collection of starting nodes.
Do you want to be added to Freenet Directory?
Adding yourself to the Freenet Directory will publicly publish your
connection information, so that new users can us
debate it ;)
-Colin
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 December 2007 18:23, Colin Davis wrote:
>
>> I think this conversation has denegrated into Bike Shed area.
>> (http://wiki.netbsd.se/bikeshed)
>> My vote is for the following, but I think at this
I think this conversation has denegrated into Bike Shed area.
(http://wiki.netbsd.se/bikeshed)
My vote is for the following, but I think at this point is almost
doesn't matter.
You're almost there! Your Freenet installation is almost complete.
Freenet is currently running in insecure mode, whic
1 - 100 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
