On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 07:20:16PM -0400, eigenman wrote:
> These arguments are dry and outdated.
> Installing a program is not a massive task.
No, but writing and maintaining a piece of software for multiple web browsers,
and multiple platforms, and persuading newbies to change their browser proxy
settings, should not be undertaken without a very good reason, and such a reason
seems conspicuously absent to me.
> I suppose these were the same arguments used when the HTTP protocol of FTP
> protocol were invented
> and people wold just say "OH you can just type in all the commands you want,
> with these enormous lexigraphs"
The existing mechanism allows people to surf Freenet without any "enormous
lexigraphs", and without having to play with the proxy settings of their web
browser. It is your protocol which increases the barrier to entry, the existing
system is working excellently and has been for several months.
> ARGGGHH I say. Make a user friendly interface. I dont want to have to
> consult my 32 Volumes of Freenet command switches to make my freenet site.
And you shouldn't, but you shouldn't have to play with your Browser's proxy
settings to view sites on Freenet either. We could easily avoid both by sticking
to standards which are already deployed and are already working.
> Command line ism is the future to security. right?
Please drop this silly strawman argument. We are arguing for simplicity of
installation, and simplicity of installation. It is the approach that you are
advocating which increases barriers to entry for newbies.
Ian.
PGP signature
