.7 has very few users, very little content, and no opennet.
It's useless for new users.

And the security that you say is better has yet to be tested. I
wouldn't bet on something that's only been around for a few months vs.
something that's been slowly improving for...well, longer than I've
known freenet.

On 8/21/06, Julien Cornuwel <batosai at batosai.net> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Support mailing list
> Support at freenetproject.org
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
> Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
> Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe

<a href="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&amp;id=0&amp;t=57";><img
border="0" alt="Get Firefox!" title="Get Firefox!"

Reply via email to