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.

Attachment: msg02863/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to