At 13.36 13/09/02 -0500, you wrote: >> > 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.
In fact there is a major problem here, a non-technical one. Publish a freesite is the major way to disseminate info on freenet, but is not the only way to use freenet. People tend to use things in way that maybe are out of imagination; don't kill them just dropping features that are established is, in my opinion, a better way to "manage" freenet users. Or at leat the non-tecnical ones, that are many more that maybe most developer think. Now (sorry) , another problem that is similar, in some aspect, to the previous; a feature no longer avalaible to user. The use of the form accessible throught http://hostname.domain.tld:8890 when a user try to connect to the 8888 is impossible TTBOMK when tunneled via SSL; the Request button always send to 127.0.0.1, and this is hard-coded in the servlet. For this reason it is *impossible* to have public secure gateway to Freenet, that was an activity I and my group were doing. I read somethig on this subject on the dev list, but were unable to find a suggestion to solve this. It's possible to ask for a suggestion to solve this problem, or for another change in the servlet ? >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. -- * Marco A. Calamari marco at freenetproject.org * il Progetto Freenet - segui il coniglio bianco the Freenet Project - follow the white rabbit _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
