At 18.46 06/02/03 +0000, you wrote: > Re [freenet-support] Re [Free4.ems<file://D:\Mail\Attach\Re [freenet-support] Re >[Free4.ems <0880.0002>> > >On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:26:35PM -0800, AARG!Anonymous wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] scriveva: >>=20 >> > >> is happy to run on build 552; it is slow because run on a >> > >> slow system; the memory profile and resource use of kaffe >> > >> is far better respect sun jre. >> > >> Take care of this compatibility; IMHO is more important >> > >> then that the mean Freenet developer think. >> > > >> > >It crashes in minutes on my machine. The developers have been somewhat >> > >nonresponsive, the bugs seem to be deep magick and the Project Leaders >> > >have determined that we don't need to spend money making Kaffe work wi= >th >> > >Freenet. >> >=20 >> > This statement is very important; IMHO the Freenet Project=20 >> > need an explicit position on that question. >> >=20 >> > Project Leaders, can we hear you ? >> >=20 >> > Releasing the main code under GPL is ineffective, if the >> > .jar need proprietary software; in my understanding >> > the use of the GPL licence is incorrect; I think in >> > this case LGPL is the right type of licence. >> >=20 >> > Anyway, till Freenet remains in java, dropping the Kaffe >> > compatibility IMHO is a fundamental mistake, both from >> > the point of view of free software and from the security. >> >=20 >> > The only other way to solve this problem is IMU, to=20 >> > release a C (or other freely compilable/runnable language) >> > version >>=20 >> Totally agree with Marco: this shows my old sensation, Freenet is a good >> project but not its developer group :-( >Yeah yeah whatever. We can release a C version, but that means no new >features, no significant bugfixes and no speed improvements for a year. >And we need you to fund me to the tune of $1,250/month for all that >time. And finally it would be much easier to go to C++ and it would run >on almost as many platforms. A year is probably an underestimate for C, >since it'd have to be pretty much a complete reimplementation.
AFAIK, Mattew, you are probably the only person in the world (if any) that understand the overall Freenet software architecture. Can you try to explain me why a software that run smootly in the stable version (552) on Kaffe 1.0.7, so desperately need other java features in the developement branch ? It is really impossible to find a trade off between new developement and the existing features of Kaffe ? What new vital feature need it ? I need just one good reason to change my mind. Thanks a lot for your patience ..... Ciao. Marco -- + il Progetto Freenet - segui il coniglio bianco + * the Freenet Project - follow the white rabbit * * Marco A. Calamari [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.marcoc.it * * PGP RSA: ED84 3839 6C4D 3FFE 389F 209E 3128 5698 * + DSS/DH: 8F3E 5BAE 906F B416 9242 1C10 8661 24A9 BFCE 822B + _______________________________________________ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
