* Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-10 21:45:59]: > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 12:53 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Thursday 10 May 2007 11:52, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2007-05-10 11:31:22]: > > > > > > > > As long as it's an expert option, I don't see any reason why it > > > > shouldn't > > > > be accepted. > > > > > > Preventing users from their stupidity ? > > > > > > We don't want everyone to have a cache but no specialized data on the > > > basis that "with a bigger cache downloads are 'resuming' ; I don't care > > > about others nor the network so I only cache" > > > > Fair point. If they want to break their node that much they can maintain a > > fork. > > This is a real cognitive problem showing up right there. It isn't your > responsibility to second-guess the user. There are valid reasons for > the node to have this functionality. The only reason for it not to is > to inhibit users. That's what Microsoft do.
Indeed... and experience has shown that it works. NextGen$ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20070510/9ece8195/attachment.pgp>
