On Friday 03 October 2008 17:21, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> and privacy and convenience on the > >> other (convenience because Freenet's quite a large app to have running in > >> the background if you're not the person who installed it). > > > > It shouldn't be. We're working on that. > > No matter how much you slim it down Freenet will always use bandwidth, > so it will always have a performance impact for whoever happens to be > using the machine.
Only if they need every last byte of upstream bandwidth. However, running Freenet *at all* increases your total monthly traffic and may result in being throttled. > > >> Uptime is really important, I'm not disputing that, but we shouldn't try to > >> get it in ways that are likely to piss people off. > > > > Are there any such ways? > > Yes, running as a service. :-p Which is why we do! > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- 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/20081022/412e8e42/attachment.pgp>
