On Friday 24 April 2009 00:44:59 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> >> Is it? ?When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm
referring
> >> to the person that employs a lawyer. ?I think the least confusing term to
> >> use in this
On Friday 24 April 2009 11:48:35 Theodore Hong wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor wrote:
> >> > ?"Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
> >> > client is the common word.
Ian Clarke skrev:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor mailto:xor at gmx.li>>
> wrote:
>
> We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
> use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins
> which
> use it - I've worked with it for
On Friday 24 April 2009 11:48:35 Theodore Hong wrote:
Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because
client is
On Friday 24 April 2009 00:44:59 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
Is it? When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm
referring
to the person that employs a lawyer. I think the least confusing term to
use
Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 22:05:18 schrieb Robert Hailey:
> > "The Freenet software running on your computer" is probably what I
> > would use to describe what "node" means to non-techy users.
> > Couldn't it just use "Your computer is downloading this page from
> > Freenet", that's what people
> It creates a problem in Germany, since we also have a hosting company named
> freenet.
I've got Google Alerts running on 'freenet' and 90%+ of each day
results are from the german ISP/Hosting company, I think we can't do
anything about it. =/
I saw that Freenet's website has the verify code of
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor wrote:
>> > ?"Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
>> > client is the common word.
>>
>> Is it? ?When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they
On Friday 24 April 2009 00:44:59 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> >> Is it? ?When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm
referring
> >> to the person that employs a lawyer. ?I think the least confusing term to
> >> use in this
Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because
client is the common word.
Is it? When I talk to non-techies
Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 22:05:18 schrieb Robert Hailey:
The Freenet software running on your computer is probably what I
would use to describe what node means to non-techy users.
Couldn't it just use Your computer is downloading this page from
Freenet, that's what people want to know,
It creates a problem in Germany, since we also have a hosting company named
freenet.
I've got Google Alerts running on 'freenet' and 90%+ of each day
results are from the german ISP/Hosting company, I think we can't do
anything about it. =/
I saw that Freenet's website has the verify code of
Ian Clarke skrev:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor x...@gmx.li mailto:x...@gmx.li wrote:
We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins
which
use it - I've worked with it for
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
>>> client is the common word.
>>>
>> Is it? When I talk to non-techies
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Robert Hailey
wrote:
> Yea, but Matthew's language has a more technically-accurate flavor (as
> "your node" implies the distributed nature of freenet, whereas
> "freenet is downloading" makes it sound like a monolithic entity).
Technically accurate flavor is
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
>> Is it? ?When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm referring
>> to the person that employs a lawyer. ?I think the least confusing term to
>> use in this context may be "software".
>>
> Very clumbersome. How would you
On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor wrote:
>
> > "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
> > client is the common word.
>
> Is it? When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm referring
> to the
On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Mike Bush wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor wrote:
>>>
>>>
"Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
client is the common word.
t: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor wrote:
>
>
> We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
> use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
> u
On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because
client is the common word.
Is it? When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm referring
to the
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because
client is the common word.
Is it? When I talk to non-techies about a client
On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Mike Bush wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because
client is the common word.
Is it? When I
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
Is it? When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm referring
to the person that employs a lawyer. I think the least confusing term to
use in this context may be software.
Very clumbersome. How
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Robert Hailey
rob...@freenetproject.org wrote:
Yea, but Matthew's language has a more technically-accurate flavor (as
your node implies the distributed nature of freenet, whereas
freenet is downloading makes it sound like a monolithic entity).
Technically
On Friday 24 April 2009 00:44:59 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
Is it? When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm
referring
to the person that employs a lawyer. I think the least confusing term to
use
_
From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
[mailto:devl-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:58 PM
To: Discussion of development issues
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor wrote:
> "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
> client is the common word.
>
Is it? When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm referring
to the person that employs a lawyer. I think the least confusing term
ment issues
>> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability
>>
>> Hi xor!
>>
>> As I'm the GSoC student who will be working on the web
>> interface this summer, I feel I'm the one to respond.
>> My proposal is not on plain re
> -Original Message-
> From: devl-bounces at freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of sashee
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:25 PM
> To: Discussion of development issues
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface
On Wednesday 22 April 2009 12:05:51 xor wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web interface and I
> would like to state my opinion on that:
>
> We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
> use, works well, is sufficient,
Hi xor!
As I'm the GSoC student who will be working on the web interface this
summer, I feel I'm the one to respond.
My proposal is not on plain rewriting the current GUI, and make it
different, but to make it more dynamic. It primarily means introducing
server pushing, and it just means, that
Hi folks,
I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web interface and I
would like to state my opinion on that:
We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
use it - I've worked
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor wrote:
> We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
> use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
> use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.
>
I hope this is true, but I'm
Hi folks,
I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web interface and I
would like to state my opinion on that:
We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
use it - I've worked
Hi xor!
As I'm the GSoC student who will be working on the web interface this
summer, I feel I'm the one to respond.
My proposal is not on plain rewriting the current GUI, and make it
different, but to make it more dynamic. It primarily means introducing
server pushing, and it just means, that
-Original Message-
From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
[mailto:devl-boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of sashee
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:25 PM
To: Discussion of development issues
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability
Hi xor
current web interface and its usability
Hi xor!
As I'm the GSoC student who will be working on the web
interface this summer, I feel I'm the one to respond.
My proposal is not on plain rewriting the current GUI, and
make it different, but to make it more dynamic. It primarily
means
On Wednesday 22 April 2009 12:05:51 xor wrote:
Hi folks,
I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web interface and I
would like to state my opinion on that:
We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
use, works well, is sufficient, and it is
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.
I hope this is true,
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because
client is the common word.
Is it? When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm referring
to the person that employs a lawyer. I think the least confusing term
On Wednesday 22 April 2009 21:17:16 xor wrote:
_
From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
[mailto:devl-boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:58 PM
To: Discussion of development issues
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web
41 matches
Mail list logo
