Matthew Toseland skrev: > RUNNING AS A DEDICATED USER > ==================== > > At least one user saw his XP login screen changed as a result of Freenet > adding a user to run under. A number of users complained about it, or gave it > as a reason for uninstalling. We have discussed it at length and I really > don't see much alternative on Windows due to permissions problems ... >
Throwing in a question here: What are the reasons for running as our own user compared to LocalService/NetworkService/LocalSystem? What kind of permission problems does the normal service accounts give us (any we can't fix with cacls?). If any at all? Does anyone know? > FRIENDS > ====== > > Some users uninstalled because they don't have many friends, this may be > because they missed the fact that they could set seclevel to NORMAL and use > opennet ... or it may be because they didn't want to. > Note that when asking people to set a security level, some users *will* select the highest level mainly because they are in doubt of what to select, and goes for the safest one. If the highest level disables opennet, this will surely get some new users stuck. Perhaps split the security levels into 2 headings, one named something like "I already have friends using Freenet, and I am ready to exchange friend codes with them" and one named "I have no friends on Freenet, and want to start by connecting to random other Freenet users". Add bold, big font size, etc... > GENERAL CONCLUSIONS > =============== > > IMHO we can improve user friendliness significantly. However, Freenet does > not > easily align with people preconceptions. It simply must run in the > background, or performance for the whole network will be very poor. It has > many security issues which need to be explained, and people often do not > readily understand them, uninstalling because they have no friends etc. It's > a server which uses bandwidth, CPU, RAM, and disk continually, and this may > not be acceptable to many users - in fact it may not be acceptable to MOST > users, especially with the increasing predominance of laptops. IMHO Freenet > may simply not be compatible with most users - there is simply too much to > deal with, on every level, too much that a user simply must know and can't be > bothered to read or choose. I'm still optimistic about the laptop problem. Keep in mind that the average user's machine (and internet connection) is getting more and more powerful every day (subnotebooks might take away some of this, but in the long run...). If we can at least stop increasing our resource use, our situation will improve with time. Decreasing our resource usage is obviously even better. (Yes, I'm still in the opinion that it's a *bad* idea to simply reject laptop users. I honestly don't think Freenet is strong enough to fight against the IT evolution itself.) - Zero3
