On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 12:24:23PM +0100, Newsbyte wrote: > "There can be more than one reason." > > Yes, but reasons 'afterwards' are always easily found (and even believed by > themselves). It's called 'to rationalise'. The reason why it actually got > deleted, is the reason first given in the email, which was based on an > emotional tit-for-tat reaction, and is now being rationalised by saying: > "oh, but you didn't use it anymore anyway", "you can't be trusted", etc. > > > "What you would suggest is more or less the same thing as abandoning > Freenet." > > You make the mistake of equalling the Freenet project with the current > architecture.
I don't consider I2P to be Freenet. > Surely, you can not seriously contend this is the same. In the > beginnings, freenet didn't *have* any architecture, yet the project was > there. That is factually incorrect. Freenet started with Ian's paper. > It's the goal that counts, not the underlying architecture or > techniques used. Which goal in particular? Which goal distinguishes freenet from i2p and the other similar systems? Even Entropy? We do not have a monopoly on trying to implement these ideas. But "Freenet" refers to a particular implementation. > I mean, if - by some miracle - it is acknowledged that > major parts of the software needs to be rewritten, are you then going to say > Freenet is dead? Are you going to call it something else, because you > changed the underlying architecture (which most newbie users don't care > about much anyway, as long as it does what it is supposed to do)? They will care if it means we have to throw away over a hundred thousand lines of code, many years work, and start again from scratch. > > Freenet is what you make of it; as long as it fulfills it's aims, it does > not matter what architecture you use to create it. Then I2P is also Freenet. And so is Entropy. And perhaps even Gnunet. > > > "So am I. I have heard from many users that it is better than it was. And > I have heard from the newbie that it is working acceptably performance > wise. And on my own node I rarely see RNFs and can fetch a great deal of > content." > > Then the least one can say, is that there are many users that find it crap, > and many that find it better than it was. I do not think this contradicts > eachother per s?; I do not doubt that many users, who have experienced the > totally borked network in the past, indeed feel that it is better now then > in the past. 'Better' is comparing to something else; it does not say much > about the actual performance on itself. So? You want to set arbitrary targets? > > The newbie also said I helped him, something you seem to deem irrelevant. > ;-) > > As for your own node: I'll answer that one with another post relating to the > performance. > > > "It is not a childish punishment. You cannot be trusted." > > Rationalisation. You didn't delete the account; Ian did. And he did so for > the reason he mentionned in his email. You can call it whatever you want. I stand by what he did, and what I said. > > > "Disallowing you an @freenetproject.org account is hardly restricting > your freedom of speech!" > > It is clearly a free speech issue, if it is done because one does not like > what someone else (in this case me) is saying. I am not preventing you from speaking. I don't believe that banning you from this list would be restricting your freedom of speech, any more than rejecting spams is, if you were trolling, and the sanction ian actually used is far less than this. > > "We are not obliged to accredit you, just as a university is not obliged to > give a PhD to a pupil who cheats." > > He first would have to demonstrate he cheated. *I*, on the other hand, have > demonstrated that saying that freenet still sucks (at least from the > endusers' perspective with an ordinary puter, connection and seednode), is > not besides the truth. And staying with your analogy: he could NOT, and > certainly not unilateraly, decide to revoke the PhD once he had given it to > the pupil. > > > "Just as we can ban trolls from the IRC channel and even the > mailing list; that's not a threat in this particular mail, nor is it a > promise, but it is merely a relevant remark." > > It is not about 'being able' to do something. As libertarians (or at least > freenetters) we all know that whomever has the power, can do what he wants. > Ian 'can' pull the plug (obviously), but that has no bearing on the question > if it was fair. Not only we can physically, but we can MORALLY. If some asshole comes in here and makes the lists totally unusable by his trolling, we can ban him. Just as we HAVE in the past banned mikeeusa from #freenet on IRC. Hobx banned him for repeatedly trolling mostly via racist and anti-women language, which provoked considerable anger and off topic noise. This is one reason why the signal to noise ratio was always much lower on the #freenet on IIP; because there are no ops. > > "...Given that newbie nodes always have much worse > performance initially than after they have had time to integrate, if you > can't see the likely cost of what you have said to the freenet project > in terms of new users..." > > Yes, well, this comes to the crux, doesn't it? Is it, because when I say > Freenet still sucks and you feel offended by it, or because I 'abuse' or > 'lie' or 'work against' freenet? Is it 'against us', or against the Freenet > project? I would say that, seen my recent experimental evidence, what I say > is close to the observable truth, provided you start with what an ordinary > user would have. So how does telling the truth doing something to the > detriment and 'cost in terms of new users' of the Freenet project? Are you > suggesting I should say something contrary to experimental evidence, just to > lore in more new users? I do not describe to that idea: I think it's far > better to honestly say to newbies that they shouldn't expect much of it then > to be over-optimistic every time, like some High Gods have consistantly > done. I have explained what I object to. I object to you telling users that it sucks, implying it won't get better, when you know full well it will get a lot better over time, and that it always sucks to start with. > > In fact, I think THAT is screwing the Freebie and to 'the detriment of > Freenet' and in the long term also to 'the cost of new users'. It's exactly > because of creating high expectations with the newbie that so many users > feel cheated and double dissapointed and leave Freenet, probably for good. > If we were more upfront on how bad freenet is for people that don't have > tweaked their puters, have T1 lines, are a seednode, leave their box on > 24/24 7/7, etc.we might actually be benefiting Freenet far more then with > dulling them into believing all will work out great. It is quite possible that the language on the site is overoptimistic. That does not prove your point. And telling users that freenet sucks and that the devs are ***holes, does not help, and given that freenet nodes will ALWAYS, by its very architecture, suck when first born, is going to put a lot more users off than not doing so. And I don't have a T1, and there are many seednodes. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
