Re: [freenet-dev] Re: [freenet-support] Usability improvement ideas
Troed Sångberg wrote: You asked what is needed for general acceptance of Freenet, I replied. And I disagreed. I've advocated Freenet for a long time along my peers (I'm a professional Software Engineer, specialising in crypto/security issues) - and trying to get people to visit links to http://localhost: isn't working. Just how are you trying to get people to visit such links? Verbally? If so, I suspect that it might not be the http://localhost:/; part of the URL that puts them off, but rather the [EMAIL PROTECTED],UUleYfXnBfLThNmkB8dACg part might be the bit with which they are having trouble. freenet:xxx URLs won't change that, but they will introduce a world of pain. Freenet URLs are much more likely to be given to people in hyperlink form, in which case the actual form of the URL isn't particularly relevant. The whole freenet:xxx thing is purely cosmetic. Ian. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-dev] Re: [freenet-support] Usability improvement ideas
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:03:33 +, Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just how are you trying to get people to visit such links? Verbally? If Thanks for calling Freenet advocates idiots - but the reaction is more pity from my side than anything else. http://localhost:; is what people find weird. They're used to http://; ftp://; etc and for them Freenet isn't serious until treated likewise. I'll look into what needs to be done, and simply do it. It doesn't matter if you think it's purely cosmetic or not :) ___/ _/ -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Re: [freenet-dev] Re: [freenet-support] Usability improvement ideas
[EMAIL PROTECTED],UUleYfXnBfLThNmkB8dACg part might be the bit with which they are having trouble. freenet:xxx URLs won't change that, but they will introduce a world of pain. Freenet URLs are much more likely to be given to people in hyperlink form, in which case the actual form of the URL isn't particularly relevant. The whole freenet:xxx thing is purely cosmetic. Except that you also have to mandate that everyone uses localhost: and not everyone can. Some people will want to use proxies, others will want to use a different port. Standardising on a freenet: hyperlink is just an obvious thing to do. It would also make freesite pages saved to disk work more reliably if passed around. I say go for it, but the way to do it is for the plugins to be done as separate projects and their releases included as a part of a freenet distribution if a stable one ever happens. Does anyone have any decent docs on netscape plugin architecture? ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
