On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 04:39:11PM +0100, Toad wrote: > No. That is what we do NOW. And what Sun said is ambiguous. We have two > links, one to the file with the JVM bundled, one to the one without it. > And I was told that the one without it will automatically fetch and run > the one with it if there is no JVM. That is exactly what he is asking > for above, and we already have it (or do we?). If you are going to > assume that our users are epsilon minus semimorons, however, you could > make the install process marginally easier to use by simply removing the > link to the installer without the JVM.
Ah yes, because anyone that is unfamiliar with Java must be a moron - that must be the attitude that gives Freenet such a reputation for user friendliness. What is moronic, if what you say is true, is confusing the user by making both installers available when one of them will do the job of both. Ian. -- Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Weblog http://slashdot.org/~sanity/journal _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
