* Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-11 14:08:32]: > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 12:42 +0200, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > * Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-11 08:19:49]: > > > > > 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]: > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > Shall I remind you that > > ... > > ... > > ... > > ... > > ... > > ... > > ... > > hence > > I'm against letting him play with the ratio of the cache/store. > > You didn't answer the question. What do you mean "it works"?
I did in the part you've stripped. Inhibiting users seems to be something that most of them like. Feel free to explain to me why the lack of that feature is a problem now. 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/20070511/6c65fb80/attachment.pgp>
