Quoting Tom Kaitchuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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.
I agree that an 'ideal specification' that many work towards implementing would be beneficial, however, the likelyhood of everyone agreeing on what is ideal is highly unlikely. If everyone agreed on one implementation, we wouldn't have different projects to begin with. j. > 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. > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
