On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 09:02:19PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. Even oskar doesn't understand _all_ the code. Neither do I. > > 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 ? Every time I have tried either branch on my particular machine under Kaffe (lots of different versions of Kaffe), it has fubar'd. > > What new vital feature need it ? It needs to work. Major bug fixes, some of them sadly pretty deep in Kaffe. > > 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 +
-- Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Full time freenet hacker. http://freenetproject.org/ Freenet Distribution Node (temporary) at http://amphibian.dyndns.org:8889/3arPAuj7w-c/ ICTHUS.
Description: PGP signature