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

Reply via email to