On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 22:47 +0200, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * 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.
What do you mean "it works"? What does it work to do? Bob -- Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20070511/3a6faeb5/attachment.pgp>
