My impression sometime ago. When I saw to (new build item and the new GUI)/
I would consider running a more nearly permanent node if someone (could and wanted to offer a little more explanation of setting up a dynamic IP address). I looked over the site. Sort of presume when that became really desirable someone would offer a little more guidance. Nicholas Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [Original Message] > From: Greg Wooledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 1/13/2003 9:44:34 PM > Subject: Re: [freenet-support] links and images removed after update from 534 > > Nicholas Sturm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > When I'm acquiring a new build, it simply replaces the previous one -- I > > don't have two at the same time > > unless an error occurs, powie. > > I've learned to be more conservative in my approaches to software > updates. This is especially true in cases of software where past > trends have led me to hold a relatively low level of optimism for > new releases. > > > Now that I'm not trying to run a permanent node, I > > don't even get the usual notice to undate. > > Nobody gets the explicit notices any more (unless they're on very > old builds); instead, there's a parenthetical note on the web > interface (gateway page) if your node has observed another which > claims to have a higher build number within the same "family" (5xx > [stable] or 6xx [unstable]). It's quite easy to overlook this, or > to ignore it. Some of us ignore it intentionally, at least for a > while. ;-) > > --=20 > Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - The Red Hot Chili Peppers > http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | _______________________________________________ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
