an ominous cow herd a ?crit :

>I can empathize.  Freenet is is one of the first projects that I've seen take 
>a working application and push it aside, while directing new users to an 
>alpha version.  The way it would normally be done is listing Freenet 0.5 as 
>the stable version instead of the "unsupported" version, and 0.7 as the alpha 
>version still under development.  New users would opt for the stable version.  
>Having new users directed to an alpha version while the stable version is 
>fully functioning is quite strange.

My point of view is that Freenet has always been a work-in-progress. The 
0.5 version you call "stable" was under developpement just before 
becoming unsupported. It has never been stable : google a bit and you'll 
find scripts for restarting it every night because of its "unstability".

Did you try both versions ? If yes, you should have noticed that they 
are quite as stable and that 0.7 offers far better performances and 
AFAIK the same security level.

So, why should the developpers of the project push newcomers to an 
old/buggy/unsupported/user-hostile network while they are working on 
another one that is *already* better ?

My 2 cents
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3505 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to