Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote: > * Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-16 09:26:59]: > > >> On 16 Oct 2006, at 02:29, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote: >> >> >>> * Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-15 21:37:35]: >>> >>> >>>> On 15 Oct 2006, at 16:14, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> * Dave Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-15 20:57:57]: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Author: nextgens >>>>>>> Date: 2006-10-14 11:57:08 +0000 (Sat, 14 Oct 2006) >>>>>>> New Revision: 10661 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Modified: >>>>>>> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/clients/http/ >>>>>>> DarknetConnectionsToadlet.java >>>>>>> Log: >>>>>>> Small hack on fproxy to deny node removal if there isn't one >>>>>>> week of >>>>>>> >>>>>> inactivity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there a particular reason for this? Surely if a user is >>>>>> removing an active >>>>>> node, they're doing it for a reason. This strikes me as very >>>>>> patronising. >>>>>> >>>>> Fighting against network churn... I'm not sure a big warning >>>>> would be >>>>> efficient enough :| >>>>> >>>>> Maybe I should even do a step forward : remove the "disable" >>>>> feature and let only BurstOnly and ListenOnly. >>>>> >>>> This isn't a good idea, I agree with Dave Baker, it is patronizing, >>>> and reminiscent of the kind of attitude that leads to things like >>>> DRM. If a user decides that they want to remove a connection, it >>>> isn't our business to tell them they can't. >>>> >>>> Anyway, connection churn is much more likely to be due to nodes going >>>> up and then going down permanently, than people removing peers >>>> prematurely. >>>> >>>> If I could state a general principal here, remember that our software >>>> is just a guest on the user's computer. If they tell it to do >>>> something, it should do it. We have no business second guessing >>>> users. >>>> >>>> Ian. >>>> >>>> Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. >>>> phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog >>>> >>>> >>> Ok, so I'll revert it, but may I add a confirmation step with a >>> discouraging warning insteed ? >>> >> How about using color coding? Make connections that haven't been >> active for over a week red, make other ones a less concerning black - >> or something like that. >> >> Ian. >> > > It's already like that... connections that haven't been active for over > a week are already displayed in red. > It's not red until two weeks. I coded that and it hasn't changed yet. > In fact, I would like to stop people from removing connections, not > encourage them to do so ;) >
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
