On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > Strongly agreed. From the point of view of a new user, or a journalist, FMS is > part of Freenet. It is highly unlikely to get any independant publicity, even > if we don't bundle it. All that happens if we don't bundle it is it doesn't > get used and there's one less reason for people to stay on Freenet.
Bundling it doesn't help FMS get publicity - having an independent distribution point for FMS will - but bundling FMS will mean it is forever dependent on us for it to get attention. Anyway, we don't bundle FMS now, and yet it has users, a surprising number of users actually. > The base > system really isn't that interesting. Fproxy plus an embeddable FMS web > interface (i.e. forums-within-freesites) plus an embeddable search engine > plus a webmail implementation, plus an external blog publishing tool for > those who want to create content themselves, *that* is more or less a > complete underground network. "Java really isn't that interesting. Java plus a P2P client plus a game, plus a Java email client, *that* is more or less a complete system". See, you could use these arguments to justify something that would clearly be inappropriate were it applied to Java. > And as the other poster pointed out, the > download size really isn't the problem. The problem is that the user often > doesn't know about the apps we bundle. There are ways to deal with that. We shouldn't be bundling apps in the first place. > Apart from all these excellent points ... why should the user have to download > the client apps from the website and thereby blow their anonymity? Now a bad > guy tracing a freesite author only has to look in the set of people who > downloaded jSite! jSite can be downloaded from within Freenet for users that already have Freenet running. > IMHO if we don't bundle the apps, we should either: > 1) Ask the user about them at the end of the post-install wizard, explaining > clearly and concisely what each one is, and then download them over Freenet. > OR > 2) Offer them for download on an Official Project Freesite, with the stuff > that is hosted on our servers being officially endorsed by us for security > reasons. Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them use sourceforge, or google code, or set up their own website. Ian. -- Email: ian at uprizer.com Cell: +1 512 422 3588 Skype: sanity
