The user has complete freedom to hack his node in any bizarre way he wants to. On the other hand, we are entitled to only provide options which we deem useful. For example, we don't provide a ReportMyIPAddressToTheNSA option.
As far as the specific issue goes, there may be a real solution (adaptive sizing) at some point, there have been suggestions. The point is, it will take time, and it isn't a priority right now. Therefore the place for it is the bugtracker. On Friday 11 May 2007 20:57, Bob Ham wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Improving the usability, providing them an interface like they are used > > to. Not inhibiting them would force us to document what side effects > > changing that setting might have; It's not something we want to dedicate > > ressources on doing. > > Just so you understand, I'm talking generally here, not specifically > about the store split issue (and, reading back, it might not have been > clear but that's what I have been talking about.) > > It seems you don't want to improve the functionality of the node because > improving the functionality involves communicating to users how to use > the node properly. Either that, or changing the entire node's UI to be > simpler; to something existing users aren't used to. > > I can see now what the issue is: the project is more concerned with > forwarding political goals than it is with writing good software. That > is not something I want to be involved with. I will discontinue my > node's operation and leave you in peace. > > Bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20070515/d5c72056/attachment.pgp>
