* Matthew Toseland [2008-05-19 12:58:24]:
> > > > > software on people's machines which we didn't write, and which for all
> > > > > we know could contain well hidden code to delete their hard disks on
> > > > > July 4th just for a laugh. If we install this software, WE ARE
> > > > >
* Matthew Toseland [2008-05-19 11:47:16]:
> On Sunday 18 May 2008 05:17, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > * Ian Clarke [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
> >
> > > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
> > > wrote:
> > > >> Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
> > > >>
On Monday 19 May 2008 12:33, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Matthew Toseland [2008-05-19 11:47:16]:
>
> > On Sunday 18 May 2008 05:17, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > > * Ian Clarke [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
On Sunday 18 May 2008 05:17, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Ian Clarke [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
>
> > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
> > wrote:
> > >> Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
> > >> motivate users to use Freenet. Only developers download
* Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-19 11:47:16]:
On Sunday 18 May 2008 05:17, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail,
* Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-19 12:58:24]:
software on people's machines which we didn't write, and which for all
we know could contain well hidden code to delete their hard disks on
July 4th just for a laugh. If we install this software, WE ARE
RESPONSIBLE
* Ian Clarke [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> >> Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
> >> motivate users to use Freenet. Only developers download the JRE, most
> >> users get it bundled with Java apps. The same
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
>> Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
>> motivate users to use Freenet. Only developers download the JRE, most
>> users get it bundled with Java apps. The same will be true of
>> Freenet, its a platform, most
On Friday 16 May 2008 22:09, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Colin Davis wrote:
> >> 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 -
On Friday 16 May 2008 22:09, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Colin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
motivate users to use Freenet. Only developers download the JRE, most
users get it bundled with Java apps. The same will be true of
Freenet, its a
* Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
motivate users to use Freenet. Only developers download the JRE, most
users get it bundled
* Ian Clarke [2008-05-16 09:35:34]:
> 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
On Friday 16 May 2008 15:35, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
> >
> > What about fproxy; shall it be separated from fred too ? I think it
> > should be a plugin to the node.
>
> Fproxy is the means through which the node is configured, so it
>
* Ian Clarke [2008-05-16 09:21:10]:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis wrote:
> > 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 to be promoted
> > by application development.. Currently, when
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Colin Davis wrote:
>> 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
On Friday 16 May 2008 15:21, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis wrote:
> > 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 to be promoted
> > by application development.. Currently,
Okay, I'm modifying my compromise solution slightly here:
The installer itself should be lean and mean, and not bundle anything apart
from the smaller plugins.
At the end of the post-install wizard, we show the user a brief explanation of
each application, and ask them whether they want it.
On Friday 16 May 2008 09:53, Jano wrote:
> Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
> > wrote:
> That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
> do with Freenet.
> >>>
> >>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world
On Thursday 15 May 2008 23:09, Colin Davis wrote:
> 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
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.
>>>
>>
> 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
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
> wrote:
That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
do with Freenet.
>>>
>>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet?
>>
>> That's an assumption, not a fact. As far
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, java has a frozen API... last time I
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> Strongly agreed. From the point of view of a new user, or a journalist, FMS is
> part of Freenet. It is highly unlikely to get any independant publicity, even
> if we don't bundle it. All that happens if we don't bundle it is it doesn't
>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis wrote:
> 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 to be promoted
> by application development.. Currently, when Freenet makes a new
> revision, that hits Slashdot,
Ian Clarke wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
do with Freenet.
Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet?
That's an assumption, not a fact. As far as I
On Thursday 15 May 2008 23:09, Colin Davis wrote:
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
On Friday 16 May 2008 09:53, Jano wrote:
Ian Clarke wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
do with Freenet.
Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world
Okay, I'm modifying my compromise solution slightly here:
The installer itself should be lean and mean, and not bundle anything apart
from the smaller plugins.
At the end of the post-install wizard, we show the user a brief explanation of
each application, and ask them whether they want it.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 to be promoted
by application development.. Currently, when Freenet makes a new
revision, that
On Friday 16 May 2008 15:21, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 to be promoted
by application development..
* Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-16 09:21:10]:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 to be promoted
by application
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strongly agreed. From the point of view of a new user, or a journalist, FMS is
part of Freenet. It is highly unlikely to get any independant publicity, even
if we don't bundle it. All that happens if we don't bundle it
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.
Heh, java has a frozen API...
* Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-16 09:35:34]:
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
On Friday 16 May 2008 15:35, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about fproxy; shall it be separated from fred too ? I think it
should be a plugin to the node.
Fproxy is the means through which the node is configured, so it
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.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Colin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
wrote:
>>> That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
>>> do with Freenet.
>>
>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet?
>
> That's an assumption, not a fact. As far as I know there's little
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 to be
43 matches
Mail list logo
