On Thursday 11 December 2008 23:36, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Nextgens has pointed out that we can't run it from All Users, because running > it as one user (especially admin) will change the permissions and break it > for the other users. So it's a choice between running it from the startup > group of the user that installed it, or running it as a service.
Furthermore, if we have two users who both want to use Freenet, what happens? If the one who's actually installed it logs on first, no problem. But if he doesn't, the other user will either: a) Install a new node of their own. This is bad. OR b) Navigate to the relevant directory and try to start it themselves. This will break due to permissions issues, or will work and screw up the permissions for everyone else. Either way it's bad. So I side with nextgens here. > > On Thursday 11 December 2008 16:38, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > Zero3 is very keen that we should run from the start menu from the > installing > > user, rather than installing a service. This has a number of advantages: > > - It will be possible to kill Freenet from Task Manager. Not being able to > > kill Freenet from Task Manager likely alienates a lot of users IMHO. > > - We would not need to provide a script to disable autostart: advanced users > > would just move it away from the start menu, and non-advanced users would > > just uninstall it (as they do now). > > - Fewer permissions problems, no dedicated Freenet user. > > - WHEN we have a tray icon, we can start it at the same time. > > > > There are however some disadvantages: > > - Marginally less uptime if there is a login screen and the user doesn't log > > in immediately. This may be disproportionately significant however in terms > > of performance in some cases: IF the user starts using Freenet immediately > > after logging in, the extra few seconds would have been rather helpful. > > - The user actually needs to log in. We can't just tell them to keep their > > computers on 24x7 to run Freenet if it doesn't start until they log in. This > > could perhaps be significant. > > - Less uptime when other users are using the computer. > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20081211/2b3f6169/attachment.pgp>
