Hey, excuse me but, this IS a crock. Here's Freenet and already
someone's coming on here espousing/advocating some pseudo-fascist
censorship ideologies cloaked in the lets make it more user-friendly
types of jargon. Come on people. If you don't like it don't click it.
And this shit(don't
There _has_ to be a question when installing asking the
user if he/she pays for bandwidth (esp outgoing) and set the configuration in
Freenet accordingly - bad press resulting from Joe Doe installing Freenet and
getting $1000 bills (think NZ, OZ) isn't good.
Hmm. Good idea. However,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:11:25PM -0800, Christopher Brian Jack wrote:
There _has_ to be a question when installing asking the
user if he/she pays for bandwidth (esp outgoing) and set the configuration in
Freenet accordingly - bad press resulting from Joe Doe installing Freenet and
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:31:58PM -0800, Paul wrote:
I see the installation of Freenet and the configuration of Freenet to
be an area that needs serious attention.
First, I use Freenet on a Mac, but Mac OS X is not shown anymore as a
compatible OS on the Freenet web site download page. It
On Friday 31 October 2003 12:54 pm, Doug Bostrom wrote:
The splitfile interface provides a useful measure of progress or at least
continued activity. How about something to give users a little feedback
while other key types are being retrieved?
Browsers generally provide some kind of
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:35:53AM -0500, Nick Tarleton wrote:
On Friday 31 October 2003 12:54 pm, Doug Bostrom wrote:
The splitfile interface provides a useful measure of progress or at least
continued activity. How about something to give users a little feedback
while other key types are
On Sat, Nov 1, 2003 at 14:10:43 +0800, Toad wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:31:58PM -0800, Paul wrote:
I see the installation of Freenet and the configuration of Freenet to
be an area that needs serious attention.
First, I use Freenet on a Mac, but Mac OS X is not shown anymore as a
On Saturday 01 November 2003 05:13 pm, Paul wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2003 at 14:10:43 +0800, Toad wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:31:58PM -0800, Paul wrote:
I see the installation of Freenet and the configuration of Freenet to
be an area that needs serious attention.
First, I use
On Friday 31 October 2003 07:37, Ian Clarke wrote:
So, this email is an invitation to anyone that has constructive
criticism or suggestion's for how Freenet's first impression can be
enhanced. Topics include installation, FProxy, even the website's layout.
Ian.
The splitfile interface
One thing people haven't suggested yet:
Log file rotation with deletion of old logfiles and a maximum space
usage setting.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:37:27PM +, Ian Clarke wrote:
As the developers work hard to improve the core operation of Freenet, it
can be easy to forget about the more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
freenet:// handled by Opera, Firebird etc. If Freenet isn't installed, a
redirection to http://freenet.sf.net where the download links are more
prominently displayed.
We have debated the whole freenet:xxx thing before and there are serious
problems with it - not least
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:57:49 +, Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
freenet:// handled by Opera, Firebird etc. If Freenet isn't installed,
a redirection to http://freenet.sf.net where the download links are
more prominently displayed.
We have debated the whole freenet:xxx thing before and
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
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
[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
Quoting Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So, this email is an invitation to anyone that has constructive
criticism or suggestion's for how Freenet's first impression can be
enhanced. Topics include installation, FProxy, even the website's layout.
freenet:// handled by Opera, Firebird etc. If
16 matches
Mail list logo
