Michael Yip wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently writing a simple client to communicate to my Freenet
> node so that I can automate the upload and download process.
>
> For some strange reason, whenver I send a ClientGet and ClientPut
> request, unless there's a field missing, I don't get a reply
Hi all,
I'm currently writing a simple client to communicate to my Freenet node
so that I can automate the upload and download process.
For some strange reason, whenver I send a ClientGet and ClientPut
request, unless there's a field missing, I don't get a reply from the
node and I just site
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:21:47PM +0100, Michael Yip wrote:
Hi all,
I'm currently writing a simple client to communicate to my Freenet node
so that I can automate the upload and download process.
For some strange reason, whenver I send a ClientGet and ClientPut
request, unless there's
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:21:47PM +0100, Michael Yip wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently writing a simple client to communicate to my Freenet node
> so that I can automate the upload and download process.
>
> For some strange reason, whenver I send a ClientGet and ClientPut
> request, unless
Hi all,
I'm currently writing a simple client to communicate to my Freenet node
so that I can automate the upload and download process.
For some strange reason, whenver I send a ClientGet and ClientPut
request, unless there's a field missing, I don't get a reply from the
node and I just site
Michael Yip wrote:
Hi all,
I'm currently writing a simple client to communicate to my Freenet
node so that I can automate the upload and download process.
For some strange reason, whenver I send a ClientGet and ClientPut
request, unless there's a field missing, I don't get a reply from
The new Windows tray manager is right now using a simple down-scaled
version of the Freenet bunny. It works okay, but it isn't optimal.
If anyone can fix up a better icon, please feel free to do so.
The current ones are available here:
Icon for "active":
The new Windows tray manager is right now using a simple down-scaled
version of the Freenet bunny. It works okay, but it isn't optimal.
If anyone can fix up a better icon, please feel free to do so.
The current ones are available here:
Icon for active:
On Friday 28 March 2008 13:07, Michael Rogers wrote:
> On Mar 27 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Or we could just hope that the images are in the same container? But that
> > would not work for Freenet Activelink Index for example. Another problem
> > with converting images to iframes is that
On Mar 28, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 28 March 2008 13:07, Michael Rogers wrote:
>> Why would refreshing the whole page (with placeholders rather than
>> iframes)
>> not work?
>
> It would work, but it would be very annoying to the user. Also it
> wouldn't
> solve
On Friday 28 March 2008 12:14, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 28 March 2008 00:28, Victor Denisov wrote:
> > I'm sorry if I missed something obvious, but why not use some simple JS
> > to handle this issue, polling Fproxy periodically with XHRs (possibly,
> > even showing progress bar, or
On Friday 28 March 2008 00:28, Victor Denisov wrote:
> I'm sorry if I missed something obvious, but why not use some simple JS
> to handle this issue, polling Fproxy periodically with XHRs (possibly,
> even showing progress bar, or something?) We're talking about using
> "normal", untweaked
* David Sowder [2008-03-27 07:32:30]:
> Florent Daigni?re wrote:
>> * David Sowder (Zothar) [2008-03-25
>> 19:13:13]:
>>
>>> On approach, at least to avoid the stats page not returning after
>>> starting the loading of 10 freesites on separate tabs, might be to
>>> separate the node
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm sorry if I missed something obvious, but why not use some simple JS
to handle this issue, polling Fproxy periodically with XHRs (possibly,
even showing progress bar, or something?) We're talking about using
"normal", untweaked browser here,
On Thursday 27 March 2008 19:04, Michael Rogers wrote:
> freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> > Okay, replying to myself and topposting... *hands some spears*
> >
> > I made a test and simply replaced the mimetype with "image/gif", so the
> > "image" is broken but the browser still thinks it's an
On Friday 28 March 2008 00:28, Victor Denisov wrote:
I'm sorry if I missed something obvious, but why not use some simple JS
to handle this issue, polling Fproxy periodically with XHRs (possibly,
even showing progress bar, or something?) We're talking about using
normal, untweaked browser
On Friday 28 March 2008 12:14, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Friday 28 March 2008 00:28, Victor Denisov wrote:
I'm sorry if I missed something obvious, but why not use some simple JS
to handle this issue, polling Fproxy periodically with XHRs (possibly,
even showing progress bar, or
On Friday 28 March 2008 13:07, Michael Rogers wrote:
On Mar 27 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Or we could just hope that the images are in the same container? But that
would not work for Freenet Activelink Index for example. Another problem
with converting images to iframes is that iframes
On Mar 28, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Friday 28 March 2008 13:07, Michael Rogers wrote:
Why would refreshing the whole page (with placeholders rather than
iframes)
not work?
It would work, but it would be very annoying to the user. Also it
wouldn't
solve the
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> If not, we're back to my original conclusion: we need a browser plugin to
> handle the freenet: protocol.
It would be really nice to find a browser-agnostic solution. Could we
refresh the whole page periodically until all the images have been
loaded? Firefox will jump
Okay, replying to myself and topposting... *hands some spears*
I made a test and simply replaced the mimetype with "image/gif", so the
"image" is broken but the browser still thinks it's an image and
hopefully behaves normal.
My Opera 9.23 sends a new request after 5 seconds, so from my side it
Sorry, I don't have a capable HTTP framework to return binary data. I'm
limited to console commands...
PS: "Refresh"s upon a 301 redirect don't seem to work here.
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> The question is, does it work with images? When I tried it (some time ago),
> it
> didn't work with
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 27 March 2008 01:16, you wrote:
>
>> * Michael Rogers [2008-03-26 09:36:32]:
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>>
Anyone got any better ideas?
>>> Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 March 2008 10:42, Jano wrote:
>> Michael Rogers wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> >>Anyone got any better ideas?
>> >
>> > Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
>> > internals, but when a key is
The question is, does it work with images? When I tried it (some time ago), it
didn't work with inline images.. well I think it didn't, could you check
please? multipart/replace *might* work with images. iframes would definitely
work with images but require that we know the dimensions of the
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Firefox at least is capable of doing pretty fast relayout, so hopefully it
> would be possible to send a placeholder; the thing is we'd want it to be
> refreshed, so we need to find a mechanism for that. Iframes and
> multipart/replace are the only easy possibilities I
On Thursday 27 March 2008 17:03, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > The tricky bit is images - if they can't be loaded immediately, we might
have
> > to convert them to iframes or something.
>
> Would it be possible to send a small placeholder image (like the red dot
> IE used
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> The tricky bit is images - if they can't be loaded immediately, we might have
> to convert them to iframes or something.
Would it be possible to send a small placeholder image (like the red dot
IE used to use) with a Refresh header? Or would the header affect the
On Thursday 27 March 2008 01:16, you wrote:
> * Michael Rogers [2008-03-26 09:36:32]:
>
> > On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > >Anyone got any better ideas?
> >
> > Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
> > internals, but when a key is requested,
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 10:42, Jano wrote:
> Michael Rogers wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >>Anyone got any better ideas?
> >
> > Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
> > internals, but when a key is requested, would it be possible to
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 03:16, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Matthew Toseland [2008-03-25 20:36:43]:
>
> > Okay, having investigated this, I'm fairly confident of the current
theory:
> > - If a copy of Firefox is already running with the default profile, and we
> > launch a copy with our
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 02:15, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > Anyone got any better ideas?
>
> An extension similar to Torbutton?
Well one of the reasons we went for a browser profile was that we want it to
be distinct from Freenet -
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 23:00, Caco Patane wrote:
> > 2. Ship a copy of Portable Firefox (~ 6MB), or some other self contained
> > browser. Find some way to auto-update it.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Anyone got any better ideas?
>
> What about Prism?
>
>
Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> Sure it's possible... but not a realistic option. If the browser happens
> to have reached its maximum amount of connections, I bet it won't obey
> the "refresh" header we would set on the page we display, effectively
> "breaking" the browsing.
Could we send the "please
>> I've investigated that and the problem with that solution is that many
>> misconfigured firewalls allow traffic from 127.0.0.1/32 but not
>> 127.0.0.0/8 as they are supposed to ...
>>
> I'm not talking about a different IP address, but a different port, such as:
Isn't the
John B?ckstrand wrote:
>>> I've investigated that and the problem with that solution is that many
>>> misconfigured firewalls allow traffic from 127.0.0.1/32 but not
>>> 127.0.0.0/8 as they are supposed to ...
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not talking about a different IP address, but a different port,
Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * David Sowder (Zothar) [2008-03-25
> 19:13:13]:
>
>> On approach, at least to avoid the stats page not returning after
>> starting the loading of 10 freesites on separate tabs, might be to
>> separate the node control/stats parts of FProxy from the key fetching
* Joel C. Salomon [2008-03-26 22:32:27]:
> Can a Firefox plugin be made smart enough so it only affects the
> latency setting for one site? (Namely 127.0.0.1: --
> customizable to whatever's on the user's machine.)
I don't think so; that would involve patching firefox itself. We could
* Juiceman [2008-03-26 21:51:06]:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
> > * Juiceman [2008-03-26 20:56:46]:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Toseland
> > > wrote:
> > > > Okay, having investigated this, I'm fairly confident of the current
* Michael Rogers [2008-03-26 09:36:32]:
> On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >Anyone got any better ideas?
>
> Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
> internals, but when a key is requested, would it be possible to display a
> "please wait" page with a
* Juiceman [2008-03-26 20:56:46]:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > Okay, having investigated this, I'm fairly confident of the current theory:
> > - If a copy of Firefox is already running with the default profile, and we
> > launch a copy with our profile
Florent Daignière wrote:
* David Sowder (Zothar) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-25 19:13:13]:
On approach, at least to avoid the stats page not returning after
starting the loading of 10 freesites on separate tabs, might be to
separate the node control/stats parts of FProxy from the key
I've investigated that and the problem with that solution is that many
misconfigured firewalls allow traffic from 127.0.0.1/32 but not
127.0.0.0/8 as they are supposed to ...
I'm not talking about a different IP address, but a different port, such as:
Isn't the connection-limiting per
Florent Daignière wrote:
Sure it's possible... but not a realistic option. If the browser happens
to have reached its maximum amount of connections, I bet it won't obey
the refresh header we would set on the page we display, effectively
breaking the browsing.
Could we send the please wait
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 23:00, Caco Patane wrote:
2. Ship a copy of Portable Firefox (~ 6MB), or some other self contained
browser. Find some way to auto-update it.
...
Anyone got any better ideas?
What about Prism?
http://labs.mozilla.com/featured-projects/#prism
As far
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 02:15, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone got any better ideas?
An extension similar to Torbutton?
Well one of the reasons we went for a browser profile was that we want it to
be distinct from
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 03:16, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-25 20:36:43]:
Okay, having investigated this, I'm fairly confident of the current
theory:
- If a copy of Firefox is already running with the default profile, and we
launch a copy
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 10:42, Jano wrote:
Michael Rogers wrote:
On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Anyone got any better ideas?
Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
internals, but when a key is requested, would it be possible to display a
On Thursday 27 March 2008 01:16, you wrote:
* Michael Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-26 09:36:32]:
On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Anyone got any better ideas?
Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
internals, but when a key is requested,
Matthew Toseland wrote:
The tricky bit is images - if they can't be loaded immediately, we might have
to convert them to iframes or something.
Would it be possible to send a small placeholder image (like the red dot
IE used to use) with a Refresh header? Or would the header affect the
whole
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 10:42, Jano wrote:
Michael Rogers wrote:
On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Anyone got any better ideas?
Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
internals, but when a key is requested, would it
On Thursday 27 March 2008 17:03, Michael Rogers wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
The tricky bit is images - if they can't be loaded immediately, we might
have
to convert them to iframes or something.
Would it be possible to send a small placeholder image (like the red dot
IE used to use)
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Firefox at least is capable of doing pretty fast relayout, so hopefully it
would be possible to send a placeholder; the thing is we'd want it to be
refreshed, so we need to find a mechanism for that. Iframes and
multipart/replace are the only easy possibilities I can
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Thursday 27 March 2008 01:16, you wrote:
* Michael Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-26 09:36:32]:
On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Anyone got any better ideas?
Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about
The question is, does it work with images? When I tried it (some time ago), it
didn't work with inline images.. well I think it didn't, could you check
please? multipart/replace *might* work with images. iframes would definitely
work with images but require that we know the dimensions of the
John Bäckstrand wrote:
I've investigated that and the problem with that solution is that many
misconfigured firewalls allow traffic from 127.0.0.1/32 but not
127.0.0.0/8 as they are supposed to ...
I'm not talking about a different IP address, but a different port, such as:
Sorry, I don't have a capable HTTP framework to return binary data. I'm
limited to console commands...
PS: Refreshs upon a 301 redirect don't seem to work here.
Matthew Toseland wrote:
The question is, does it work with images? When I tried it (some time ago),
it
didn't work with inline
Okay, replying to myself and topposting... *hands some spears*
I made a test and simply replaced the mimetype with image/gif, so the
image is broken but the browser still thinks it's an image and
hopefully behaves normal.
My Opera 9.23 sends a new request after 5 seconds, so from my side it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, replying to myself and topposting... *hands some spears*
I made a test and simply replaced the mimetype with image/gif, so the
image is broken but the browser still thinks it's an image and
hopefully behaves normal.
My Opera 9.23 sends a new request after 5
On Thursday 27 March 2008 19:04, Michael Rogers wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, replying to myself and topposting... *hands some spears*
I made a test and simply replaced the mimetype with image/gif, so the
image is broken but the browser still thinks it's an image and
Matthew Toseland wrote:
If not, we're back to my original conclusion: we need a browser plugin to
handle the freenet: protocol.
It would be really nice to find a browser-agnostic solution. Could we
refresh the whole page periodically until all the images have been
loaded? Firefox will jump
On Thursday 27 March 2008 19:04, Michael Rogers wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, replying to myself and topposting... *hands some spears*
I made a test and simply replaced the mimetype with image/gif, so the
image is broken but the browser still thinks it's an image and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm sorry if I missed something obvious, but why not use some simple JS
to handle this issue, polling Fproxy periodically with XHRs (possibly,
even showing progress bar, or something?) We're talking about using
normal, untweaked browser here, correct?
* David Sowder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-27 07:32:30]:
Florent Daignière wrote:
* David Sowder (Zothar) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-25 19:13:13]:
On approach, at least to avoid the stats page not returning after
starting the loading of 10 freesites on separate tabs, might be to
Can a Firefox plugin be made smart enough so it only affects the
latency setting for one site? (Namely 127.0.0.1: --
customizable to whatever's on the user's machine.)
--Joel
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Florent Daigni?re
wrote:
> * Juiceman [2008-03-26 20:56:46]:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Toseland
> > wrote:
> > > Okay, having investigated this, I'm fairly confident of the current
> theory:
> > > - If a copy of Firefox is already
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> Okay, having investigated this, I'm fairly confident of the current theory:
> - If a copy of Firefox is already running with the default profile, and we
> launch a copy with our profile (-no-remote -P ), everything
> works fine (as
Michael Rogers wrote:
> On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> Anyone got any better ideas?
>
> Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
> internals, but when a key is requested, would it be possible to display a
> "please wait" page with a "cancel" button
Michael Rogers wrote:
> On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>Anyone got any better ideas?
>
> Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
> internals, but when a key is requested, would it be possible to display a
> "please wait" page with a "cancel" button
On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>Anyone got any better ideas?
Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
internals, but when a key is requested, would it be possible to display a
"please wait" page with a "cancel" button and/or a link to the main fproxy
* Matthew Toseland [2008-03-25 20:36:43]:
> Okay, having investigated this, I'm fairly confident of the current theory:
> - If a copy of Firefox is already running with the default profile, and we
> launch a copy with our profile (-no-remote -P ), everything
> works fine (as long as our copy
* Matthew Toseland [2008-03-25 19:41:59]:
> Sorry, I'm the idiot who decided to create a firefox profile. I was simply
> trying to avoid some major performance issues we have because the default
> settings are not good for Freenet, and asking users to change them globally
> also sucks.
>
>
* ghoul at hushmail.com [2008-03-25 19:34:54]:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Do you think that the following plugin for FF could be tweaked for
> Freenet's use?
> Torbutton (https://torbutton.torproject.org/dev/)
>
> snip*
> Torbutton is a 1-click way for Firefox users
* David Sowder (Zothar) [2008-03-25
19:13:13]:
> On approach, at least to avoid the stats page not returning after
> starting the loading of 10 freesites on separate tabs, might be to
> separate the node control/stats parts of FProxy from the key fetching
> parts by placing one of the two on
Robert Hailey wrote:
> If the profile we ship was only unpacked/readable while freenet is
> running, then (presumably) the conventional diagnostics (stop
> freenet/uninstall freenet) would work around the 'take over' feeling.
But if the user started a normal firefox session while freenet's
On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Anyone got any better ideas?
Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
internals, but when a key is requested, would it be possible to display a
please wait page with a cancel button and/or a link to the main fproxy
page,
Michael Rogers wrote:
On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Anyone got any better ideas?
Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
internals, but when a key is requested, would it be possible to display a
please wait page with a cancel button and/or a link
Michael Rogers wrote:
On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Anyone got any better ideas?
Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
internals, but when a key is requested, would it be possible to display a
please wait page with a cancel button and/or a link to
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, having investigated this, I'm fairly confident of the current theory:
- If a copy of Firefox is already running with the default profile, and we
launch a copy with our profile (-no-remote -P profile name),
* Juiceman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-26 20:56:46]:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, having investigated this, I'm fairly confident of the current theory:
- If a copy of Firefox is already running with the default profile, and we
launch a
* Michael Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-26 09:36:32]:
On Mar 25 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Anyone got any better ideas?
Sorry if this would be impossible, I don't know anything about fproxy's
internals, but when a key is requested, would it be possible to display a
please wait
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Florent Daignière
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Juiceman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-26 20:56:46]:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, having investigated this, I'm fairly confident of the current
theory:
* Juiceman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-26 21:51:06]:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Florent Daignière
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Juiceman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-26 20:56:46]:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, having
Can a Firefox plugin be made smart enough so it only affects the
latency c. setting for one site? (Namely 127.0.0.1: --
customizable to whatever's on the user's machine.)
--Joel
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
* Joel C. Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-26 22:32:27]:
Can a Firefox plugin be made smart enough so it only affects the
latency c. setting for one site? (Namely 127.0.0.1: --
customizable to whatever's on the user's machine.)
I don't think so; that would involve patching firefox
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> Anyone got any better ideas?
An extension similar to Torbutton?
--Joel
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 21:00, Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > - If the default profile is NOT running when we load our copy of
> > firefox with
> > our custom profile, when the link to firefox is clicked on, it
> > coalesces with
> > our
Okay, having investigated this, I'm fairly confident of the current theory:
- If a copy of Firefox is already running with the default profile, and we
launch a copy with our profile (-no-remote -P ), everything
works fine (as long as our copy exits before the default one does).
- The default
> 2. Ship a copy of Portable Firefox (~ 6MB), or some other self contained
> browser. Find some way to auto-update it.
>
> ...
>
> Anyone got any better ideas?
What about Prism?
http://labs.mozilla.com/featured-projects/#prism
As far as I know, you can create Shortcuts and run
Sorry, I'm the idiot who decided to create a firefox profile. I was simply
trying to avoid some major performance issues we have because the default
settings are not good for Freenet, and asking users to change them globally
also sucks.
Freenet has not destroyed any data, it has simply created
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Do you think that the following plugin for FF could be tweaked for
Freenet's use?
Torbutton (https://torbutton.torproject.org/dev/)
snip*
Torbutton is a 1-click way for Firefox users to enable or disable
the browser's use of Tor. It adds a panel to
On approach, at least to avoid the stats page not returning after
starting the loading of 10 freesites on separate tabs, might be to
separate the node control/stats parts of FProxy from the key fetching
parts by placing one of the two on a separate TCP port.
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Okay,
On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Anyone got any better ideas?
If the profile we ship was only unpacked/readable while freenet is
running, then (presumably) the conventional diagnostics (stop freenet/
uninstall freenet) would work around the 'take over' feeling.
--
On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> - If the default profile is NOT running when we load our copy of
> firefox with
> our custom profile, when the link to firefox is clicked on, it
> coalesces with
> our copy and opens a new window using our profile and not the default
>
I recently decided to try Freenet. Just the act of installing it has
destroyed my internet connectivity. Freenet took over Firefox, wiping out
all of my bookmarks and extensions. I uninstalled Freenet and Firefox will
not start. I have reinstalled Firefox and it still will not start. I
desperatly
I recently decided to try Freenet. Just the act of installing it has
destroyed my internet connectivity. Freenet took over Firefox, wiping out
all of my bookmarks and extensions. I uninstalled Freenet and Firefox will
not start. I have reinstalled Firefox and it still will not start. I
desperatly
Sorry, I'm the idiot who decided to create a firefox profile. I was simply
trying to avoid some major performance issues we have because the default
settings are not good for Freenet, and asking users to change them globally
also sucks.
Freenet has not destroyed any data, it has simply created
Okay, having investigated this, I'm fairly confident of the current theory:
- If a copy of Firefox is already running with the default profile, and we
launch a copy with our profile (-no-remote -P profile name), everything
works fine (as long as our copy exits before the default one does).
- The
On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
- If the default profile is NOT running when we load our copy of
firefox with
our custom profile, when the link to firefox is clicked on, it
coalesces with
our copy and opens a new window using our profile and not the default
profile.
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 21:00, Robert Hailey wrote:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
- If the default profile is NOT running when we load our copy of
firefox with
our custom profile, when the link to firefox is clicked on, it
coalesces with
our copy and opens
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
