On Sunday 18 May 2008 05:17, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Ian Clarke <ian.clarke at gmail.com> [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
>
> > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
> > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote:
> > >> Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
> > >> motivate users to use Freenet. Only developers download the JRE, most
> > >> users get it bundled with Java apps. The same will be true of
> > >> Freenet, its a platform, most end-users don't want platforms on their
> > >> own. The solution is *not* to bundle, that is just pretending that
> > >> Freenet is more than it is.
> > >
> > > We have a lot of traffic from wikipedia. We have a lot of traffic from
> > > slashdot. For a user to even understand what Thaw is he must first
understand
> > > what Freenet is. Thaw, Freemail, FMS and jSite, don't have any sort of
web
> > > presence right now.
> >
> > So they should get a web presence, we can't reinvent sourceforge, and
> > we can't reinvent apt-get, we don't have the resources.
> >
>
> Agreed
>
> > > Freenet is not the same as Java. It's a bad metaphor. Maybe it would be
a
> > > better metaphor if any major freenet client had a web presence and
> > > significant hits of its own, but none of them do. AND WE CAN'T WAIT FOR
THEM
> > > TO GET ONE
> >
> > Why not? It would be a 30 minute job for those apps to set up with Google
Code.
> >
> > >, for much the same reason that we couldn't wait for FMS to release
> > > 0.7.0. That means we have to do what we can for *our users*, which means
> > > making it as easy as possible to get these client applications.
> >
> > You must think our users are morons if the only way they can use an
> > app is if we bundle it. FMS isn't bundled, and it seems to have no
> > shortage of users.
> >
> > This "we've got to bundle everything" is a classic feature creep
> > attitude. If you think being user friendly means installing a bunch
> > of software on someone's computer without them asking for it then you
> > have a bizarre notion of user friendliness.
> >
> > We aren't Google Code, we aren't apt-get, and we aren't Sourceforge.
> > Trying to be those things will be a massive waste of resources.
> >
>
> On the other hand, hosting freenet-related projects doesn't involve too
> much overhead as far as emu's administration is concerned... And it
> allows us to cross-reference bugs in between applications and the node,
> which is very handy.
>
> > And of course there is also the issue that we would be installing
> > software on people's machines which we didn't write, and which for all
> > we know could contain well hidden code to delete their hard disks on
> > July 4th just for a laugh. If we install this software, WE ARE
> > RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS DOES. We don't have the resources to audit
> > this code, and we can't install anonymously written code on people's
> > computers without an audit.
>
> Agreed, that's a big concern... and reviewing all the 3rd party code we
> bundle is unrealistic.
>
You mean the database engine (BDBJE currently), the native big integer code,
the java service wrapper, etc? Or you agree with Ian that we shouldn't bundle
any freenet-related code?
-------------- 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/20080519/d135760a/attachment.pgp>
