On Tuesday 11 Dec 2012 00:17:00 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2012, 21:15:29 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > > Treating stuff as text causes all sorts of problems. :( > > Sadly yes… > > > Or use FOAFs to avoid the problem entirely. And with it the uptime problem > > too. > > Hm, yes. > But having something now is better than having something maybe… > > > > That is something people already know. > > > > *Some* people already know. > > yes… > > > > > FOAF connections so you don't have to wait for me and are less > > > > dependant on me being port forwarded. > > > > > > That is a nice idea, yes. Are these already prepared or do they need > > > other changes? > > > > Partially implemented, but not ready yet. There is a branch. > > > > > In the first case, that would be an easy win. In the second I think it > > > could be delayed for later improvements of the bundles. > > > > I don't think darknet is going to work well without FOAF connections. IMHO > > it's the top priority. > > Could these not be added later on and benefit the ones who were invited > before > they were added? > > The power-users with always-on boxes don’t really need them yet, I think, and > for those invitiations don’t depend on FOAF.
Nobody uses darknet. That's not going to change unless it is BOTH easy to use/connect AND gives reasonable performance. > > But I need easy-to-use invitation bundles for my friends. > > My box is properly port-forwarded and always-on. But I want to avoid any > hassle for my friends (so some might actually install *and run* freenet with > at least one darknet connection (me)). I need to look at priorities...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
