> But even so it is static. The client does not have to worry about connecting > to > different nodes, only that it has one to connect to. Like news, most people > don't run news servers locally, but they still don't want to put the news > severs name in every message since they are almost definitely using the same > one every time.
I think you're misunderstanding what should be the usual use of the url. I dont intend users to access data with a specific server in mind. That was what the freenet:///<key> setup was for. (soon to be freenet:<key> it seems) But how will you do a server specific connection if necessary? Most of the time you wont have to but we still should make it an option. Ok, say we have a web browser integrated with freenet. If it doesn't have any default servers (or any that are working), wouldn't it be better to let users access data like they do through the web? (ie <protocol>://<server>/<document ref>) Currently it'll default to localhost:19114 if there's no host. Soon there'll be a ~./freenet file like you suggested. So this is only intended to be a secondary option. > > With the current scheme it does default to localhost:19114. > > Just use: freenet:///<key> > > > > Most users I've talked to like this scheme. > > Fuck the users, most users you have talked to have no clue what Freenet is. > Data > on Freenet is located via it's key. The entrance address is irrelevant, > putting > it in the data's URL is completely misleading, even if you have a the ability > not to. > > Just having the tag "free:" is confusing. You save 3 letters but loose > > user friendliness. (free?? what the heck is free?) You throw user > > friendliness out of the window with "KHK-SHA1" and "CHK-SHA1". > > What the heck is freenet? And, by golly, what they heck is http, I bet you > that 90% of all users don't have a clue? Part of the freenet's goal is to keep information free right? Arent we just wasting our time if we disregard the usability question and effectively block out the less technically inclined part of the world? Lets not take a "fuck the user" approach and keep sight of our goals here. Most users dont know what http stands for... so what? they've learnt to associate it with the web. Users of freenet will do the same. In fact it'll be even easier for them to understand if we use the tag "freenet://". The fact that they *can* specifiy an entry point doesnt mean that they will. (Do users usually choose what port to access when using http?) Using a separate argument works with command line interfaces, but what happens when we integrate it into a web browser? How will these browsers access info using another entry point? Misleading? Maybe. But it's a useful feature to have from a client point of view. Thoughts? -Larry _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
