> Hey, excuse me but, this IS a crock. Here's "Freenet" and already
someone's coming on here espousing/advocating some pseudo-fascist
censorship ideologies cloaked in the "lets make it more user-friendly"
types of jargon. Come on people. If you don't like it don't click it.
And this shit(don't
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:11:25PM -0800, Christopher Brian Jack wrote:
>
>
> > > There _has_ to be a question when installing asking the
> > > user if he/she pays for bandwidth (esp outgoing) and set the configuration in
> > > Freenet accordingly - bad press resulting from Joe Doe installing Fre
> > There _has_ to be a question when installing asking the
> > user if he/she pays for bandwidth (esp outgoing) and set the configuration in
> > Freenet accordingly - bad press resulting from Joe Doe installing Freenet and
> > getting $1000 bills (think NZ, OZ) isn't good.
> Hmm. Good idea. How
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 03:18:10PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > So, this email is an invitation to anyone that has constructive
> > criticism or suggestion's for how Freenet's "first impression" can be
> > enhanced. Topics include installation,
On Saturday 01 November 2003 05:13 pm, Paul wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2003 at 14:10:43 +0800, Toad wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:31:58PM -0800, Paul wrote:
> >> I see the installation of Freenet and the configuration of Freenet to
> >> be an area that needs serious attention.
> >>
> >> Firs
On Sat, Nov 1, 2003 at 14:10:43 +0800, Toad wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:31:58PM -0800, Paul wrote:
I see the installation of Freenet and the configuration of Freenet to
be an area that needs serious attention.
First, I use Freenet on a Mac, but Mac OS X is not shown anymore as a
compatibl
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:35:53AM -0500, Nick Tarleton wrote:
> On Friday 31 October 2003 12:54 pm, Doug Bostrom wrote:
> > The splitfile interface provides a useful measure of progress or at least
> > continued activity. How about something to give users a little feedback
> > while other key type
On Friday 31 October 2003 12:54 pm, Doug Bostrom wrote:
> The splitfile interface provides a useful measure of progress or at least
> continued activity. How about something to give users a little feedback
> while other key types are being retrieved?
>
> Browsers generally provide some kind of indi
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:31:58PM -0800, Paul wrote:
> I see the installation of Freenet and the configuration of Freenet to
> be an area that needs serious attention.
>
> First, I use Freenet on a Mac, but Mac OS X is not shown anymore as a
> compatible OS on the Freenet web site download page
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:37:27 +
From: Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [freenet-support] Usability improvement ideas
To: Discussion of development issues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-
"[EMAIL PROTECTED],UUleYfXnBfLThNmkB8dACg" part might
be the bit with which they are having trouble. freenet:xxx URLs won't
change that, but they will introduce a world of pain.
Freenet URLs are much more likely to be given to people in hyperlink
form, in which case the actual form of the URL i
One thing people haven't suggested yet:
Log file rotation with deletion of old logfiles and a maximum space
usage setting.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:37:27PM +, Ian Clarke wrote:
> As the developers work hard to improve the core operation of Freenet, it
> can be easy to forget about the more
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:03:33 +, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just how are you trying to get people to visit such links? Verbally? If
Thanks for calling Freenet advocates "idiots" - but the reaction is more
pity from my side than anything else. "http://localhost:"; is what
peopl
Troed Sångberg wrote:
You asked what is needed for general acceptance of Freenet, I replied.
And I disagreed.
I've advocated Freenet for a long time along my peers (I'm a
professional Software Engineer, specialising in crypto/security issues)
- and trying to get people to visit links to http://l
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:57:49 +, Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
freenet:// handled by Opera, Firebird etc. If Freenet isn't installed,
a redirection to http://freenet.sf.net where the download links are
more prominently displayed.
We have debated the whole freenet:xxx thing before and
On Friday 31 October 2003 07:37, Ian Clarke wrote:
> So, this email is an invitation to anyone that has constructive
> criticism or suggestion's for how Freenet's "first impression" can be
> enhanced. Topics include installation, FProxy, even the website's layout.
>
> Ian.
The splitfile interfac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
freenet:// handled by Opera, Firebird etc. If Freenet isn't installed, a
redirection to http://freenet.sf.net where the download links are more
prominently displayed.
We have debated the whole freenet:xxx thing before and there are serious
problems with it - not least of
Quoting Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So, this email is an invitation to anyone that has constructive
> criticism or suggestion's for how Freenet's "first impression" can be
> enhanced. Topics include installation, FProxy, even the website's layout.
freenet:// handled by Opera, Firebird et
As the developers work hard to improve the core operation of Freenet, it
can be easy to forget about the more superficial, but equally important
aspects of Freenet, namely installation procedures, and usability for
newbies.
For those intimately familiar with Freenet's operation it can be
diffi
19 matches
Mail list logo
