On Tuesday 13 May 2008 18:51, Ian Clarke wrote: > 2008/5/13 Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org>: > > Possibly, however bundling Freenet with anything is problematic > > Being bundled is one of our best hopes for getting Freenet widely > deployed, we need to be encouraging it, not looking for reasons not to > do it. Freenet is a platform on which we want people to build apps. > The best way to encourage that, given that Freenet isn't already > widely deployed, is to make it easy for those apps to bundle Freenet.
Okay, how do we make it easy to bundle Freenet? > > > , because of the overhead (in every sense): > > - Exchanging noderefs. > > Not necessary if they use opennet - the app that bundles Freenet would > be responsible for encouraging the user to behave correctly. You think they would? :) > > > - CPU/disk/memory usage. (CPU usage is low, memory usage will improve > > significantly in 0.7.1). > > If the user wants to use Frost/FMS/whatever, then they need Freenet. > Whatever overheads Freenet has are inevitable, although we need to > work to reduce them. Its certainly no reason to discourage people > from bundling Freenet. > > > - The political/ideological overhead is IMHO rather significant: Your computer > > could have encrypted child porn / encrypted terorrist training manuals / > > encrypted Tibettan photographs etc on it. > > It would be the responsibility of the app bundling Freenet to explain > these things to the user. Sure, but for a lot of apps, this is a blocker. For example, the mainstream version of Thingamablog can't realistically bundle Freenet. We are here talking about apps which are specifically written for Freenet, or plugins to mainstream apps, the plugin being specifically written for Freenet. > > Ian. -------------- 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/20080513/41d8228f/attachment.pgp>
