* David McNab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-08 14:10:31]: > Ian Clarke wrote: > > On 7 May 2006, at 18:04, David McNab wrote: > >> Ian Clarke wrote: > >>> So websites that use this will only work with users that have Firefox > >>> and have installed the plugin? > >> ... > >>> Isn't it preferable to encourage people > >>> to use the normal http://127.0.0.1:8888/ prefix? > >> > >> Seems we've got two imperfect options: > >> > >> 1) Dump user into a sea of broken links if they choose not to have their > >> fproxy at 127.0.0.1:8888 > > > > In which case the user will have some idea of why they are getting > > broken links, as they will have made a conscious decision to change > > their fproxy address. > > > >> versus > >> > >> 2) Dump user into a sea of broken links if they choose not to use an > >> extensible open-source browser > > > > Its not our job to punish the 90% of web users that don't agree with > > your preferred choice of web browser. Worse, we would also be punishing > > those people that do agree with your choice of web browser, but who > > don't have the appropriate plugin. > > > >> Both scenarios suck, but IMHO the latter sucks a lot less. > > > > Both scenarios are similar in terms of the poor user experience, the > > differentiator is which is more likely. Going with freenet:-style urls > > is much more likely to lead to scenario 2 than sticking with our current > > approach is to lead to scenario 1. > > /me stifles the temptation to write an fproxyproxy
It exists ! :) Try to set up your browser to use fproxy as an HTTP proxy server ;) IMHO it's even better in term of security as you're SURE that no external link could be loaded by your browser. NextGen$
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
