On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 03:06:38PM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > On Friday 19 September 2003 10:29 am, J wrote: > > All these grand dreams of these networks interacting are fine and all, but > > in reality, the best option IMO is to develop all of these systems > > independantly and let the best one win. The fastest, most stable and most > > secure system will eventually become the most popular ... probably. The > > rest should dwindle. > > > > I definately don't want to see any development time put towards making > > these different networks interoperate. I believe Toad's time is best > > utilized making Freenet the best system for the job. > > > > j. > > I would argue that any proposal that lays out a specification for an ideal > network would be fairly objective. So if all the projects have common goals, > then it does not take away from the goals of any project to work towards this > ideal specification.
They don't so it will. > I agree that we should not make compromises to simply > make them work together, but if a specification is produced, then all the > projects will eventually merge, however some of them will get there faster > than others. I really don't see the point of this. If there was one clear way to do this then we wouldn't have these different projects in the first place. Ian. -- Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Weblog http://slashdot.org/~sanity/journal
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
