On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 01:42:37PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:31:58AM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote:
> > None follow Ian's call for opinion about the
> > fproxy insertion capability removal.
> >
> > My opinion about it is that was a bad(TM) idea.
> >
> > I cannot imagine a good technical reason for that.
> >
> > From a normal user point of view, this fact transform
> > a read/write media in a readonly media; something that
> > the RIAA and other organization from the Dark Side
> > can just dream of.
> >
> However, you were never able to insert a *site* by fproxy. This would be
> a useful feature, no? :)
The thing is that fproxy could NEVER actually insert whole sites into
Freenet, and because site insertion is necessary to actually
effectively publish content on Freenet, it is practically useless to
keep the insertion feature in fproxy.
Also, different Freenet clients such as fcpput and liber (yes, I have
to mention my own client :) are FAR more suited for actually inserting
sites into Freenet than fproxy's meager insertion mechanism.
Therefore, wouldn't it be better to simply leave insertion altogether
out of fproxy, and to have fproxy be purely for using Freenet like the
web?
On the other hand, it probably *would* be a good idea to have links to
different Freenet insertion tools on the fproxy front page, just next
to the links on it, so that people who do want to insert sites into
Freenet can know where to go to get software that is suited for
Freenet site insertion, rather than simply leaving them wondering how
the hell they actually insert content into Freenet.
--
Yes, I know my enemies.
They're the teachers who tell me to fight me.
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance,
hypocrisy, brutality, the elite.
All of which are American dreams.
- Rage Against The Machine
_______________________________________________
devl mailing list
devl at freenetproject.org
http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
