On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 10:24:17AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > 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.
IF the smaller installer will automatically chain to the larger installer when a suitable JVM isn't installed, then I would support removing the link to the big one, although I still say it's a concession to the moron party, since somebody might conceivably know that they don't have a JVM, and want to save some time by downloading the big installer straight off. > > Ian. > > -- > Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ > Weblog http://slashdot.org/~sanity/journal -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
