On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 15:25 +0200, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * 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? > > > > > > > ... > > > > 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.
I couldn't see anything relating to inhibiting users in the part that I stripped. Also, I'm still not sure what the answer to my question is. Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. There's a goal which you're saying is achieved by inhibiting users (at least that's what I understand by the phrase "it works.") What is the goal? What does inhibiting users achieve? 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/20070511/5010649e/attachment.pgp>
