On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 09:05:05PM +0100, Newsbyte wrote: > "Saying "freenet sucks, it's gotten worse, it'll never get better", and > implying that this is because of the people building it, is not helpful. > Saying and implying it to newbies when we are particularly vulnerable > due to our slow initial performance due to freenet taking a while to > learn where stuff is is particularly unhelpful, and not compatible with > being allowed to represent the project by having an @freenetproject.org > address." > > That's bull. You have to know what you want. Ian says (on the lists) it's > because I don't use it anymore, you say it's because I promote I2P to the > detriment of Freenet, and now says it's because I say to newbies that it > sucks.
There can be more than one reason. > > First of all, I never said freenet should be abandonned; I say it should be > revamped to work with the underlying I2P framework. What you would suggest is more or less the same thing as abandoning Freenet. You would have us build something totally different. It might be simpler, it might work better, it would certainly have different attacks and it'd be based on fundamentally different principles. And it'd be largely new code. > How is this, in any way, > to the detriment of Freenet? On the contrary, I believe it would save > Freenet. Such extreme measures might conceivably conform with our ideological objectives but they are so far away from our technical architecture as to be a full rewrite not only of all the code and microarchitecture but the protocol as well, the routing algorithm, and all the fundamentals. It would no longer be Freenet. It might be necessary to start again, but that has not yet been proven to my satisfaction, as I detail in another mail. > And Freenet *does* suck, you said so much yourself. Certainly, you > also claim it's a lot better, but I haven't seen any proof of that yet, and > I'm speaking in end-user terms, not in the amount of new code being put in. So am I. I have heard from many users that it is better than it was. And I have heard from the newbie that it is working acceptably performance wise. And on my own node I rarely see RNFs and can fetch a great deal of content. > In my experience, it's not working much better then the early 0.5 build, > before the network collapsed. You mean before we actually released 0.5? After it was released it was perpetually collapsed... > > Saying to newbies it works badly when it does, can hardly be a reason to > pull out the plug on the account. You can contest how much it really sucks, > but seen the complaints of newbies and my own experiences, it's not like > *your* own experiences are the sole measurement to determine that. And you > *do* acknowledge it doesn't really work well, at least in some aspects. We are going round and round in circles; I have made my case and it is not profitable to make it again. > > The truth is mentionned in the email I received from Ian, which is: he got > pissed off by the criticism I gave. All the rest is afterwards-re-excusing > things. The account is used for letting people ask me questions about > freenet and freenethelp; do you think it's fair that this is now being > deleted, as a childish punishment because of what I say? If you want to It is not a childish punishment. You cannot be trusted. > react, react with words, or ignore me, but actively doing an action that > supercedes free speech is going a lot further. You claim it was not helpful, Disallowing you an @freenetproject.org account is hardly restricting your freedom of speech! We are not obliged to accredit you, just as a university is not obliged to give a PhD to a pupil who cheats. We can give accounts to whomever it is in the interest of the project to give accounts to. Just as we can ban trolls from the IRC channel and even the mailing list; that's not a threat in this particular mail, nor is it a promise, but it is merely a relevant remark. > but the newbie in question finds it was, and I agree bringing the > expectations down to earth is FAR better then always claiming so > over-optimistically how improved things are. > This is not about me 'abusing' Freenet; I have put too much effort in it for > anyone to seriously suggest that; it's about you guys being pissed of by my > remarks that at least *I* (and I'm REALLY not the only one) feel are valid, > based on my own experiences and what I hear from noobs. You can disagree > with what I say, but it doesn't mean it's fair to put a burden on me and > other users, because you guys feel offended. What you are saying is "Freenet will never work unless it is rewritten from scratch based on completely different architectures, and its performance sucks". Given that newbie nodes always have much worse performance initially than after they have had time to integrate, if you can't see the likely cost of what you have said to the freenet project in terms of new users, then you are not competent to have an @freenetproject.org address; and if you persist in doing it then you are not suitable to have one, because you are actively working against us. This is far, far worse if you have an @freenetproject.org account. We are quite able and willing to discriminate between those we endorse with special privelidges and those we don't, and this is not a matter of freedom of speech. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
