On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 10:06:09AM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote: > 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. It is possible to hack this up if your needs are urgent, otherwise wait a while; we are going to merge 8888 and 8890 so that we don't need the absolute link. > > 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 >
-- Matthew Toseland mtoseland at blueyonder.co.uk amphibian at sourceforge.net Freenet/Coldstore open source hacker. Employed full time by Freenet Project Inc. from 11/9/02 to 11/11/02. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020916/16f9fc60/attachment.pgp>
