On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:31:58AM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote: > I cannot imagine a good technical reason for that.
It was a usability reason, FProxy should be a tool for retrieval of information from Freenet, there are much better tools for inserting information into Freenet. > From a normal user point of view, this fact transform > a read/write media in a readonly media; something that > the RIAA and other organization from the Dark Side > can just dream of. Not at all, it just means that they can't insert with FProxy, I honestly doubt many people were actually using FProxy for inserting stuff (more likely they will use fcptools, freeweb, or frost). > It is unreasonable that a normal user install and understand > other programs just to have the basic feature of writing a file > on Freenet; maybe the only good change would be to put a size > limit on that. Writing a file on Freenet isn't of much use unless you have a mechanism to tell people where the file is. This means that Frost is probably a better option, or if you want to insert a website, you will be using fcptools anyway. > An artist friend of mine, that was partecipating to "Ars Electronica" > exibition in Lintz, showing an installation that use a Freenet gateway, > had major problems because she lost the ability to insert > without warning; I downgrade a node for her, but this was just > a stop-gap solution. Well, insert functionality is back for the time being. Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian at freenetproject.org Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020912/55b2a7fb/attachment.pgp>
