Choose:

1) 0.5:
    - the branch stable is in effect the branch unstable. both share the same 
code, eventhough the 'stable'  is called 0.5 and the unstable "pre 0.6" or 
something like that
    - unstable (eventhough the branch is called 'stable'): there are still 
major problems with the routing algorithm IIRC even in the latest CVS
    - unsupported and utterly unmaintained for NOW SEVERAL YEARS

or

2) 0.7:
    - no unstable branch because the code has to be settled and heavy work is 
going on, therefore a distinction between stable and unstable is not helpful at 
this time as both branches would be modified by a new release
    - unstable - but in the sense of "unfinished", NOT "doesn't work". 0.5 is 
more "doesn't work" than 0.7 currently is and will ever be
    - actively supported and maintained. New releases are nearly every other 
day. Bugfixes and improvements galore (that doesn't mean that 0.5 is bug free - 
all the known or unknown bugs simply aren't fixed anymore and nobody cares (for 
a good reason))

make your choice.

I already have and won't regret droppiong 0.5 which is, or better was, a 
horrible monster of software. 0.5 started up in a minute or so, 0.7 in fully 
operational in less than 5 seconds! (YMMV)




--Original Message Text---
From: urza9...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:34:25 -0400

0.7 isn't a stable version either. It's a not nearly completed, far
from functional version.

On 8/23/06, Ortwin Regel <ortwin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 0.5 isn't a stable version. It's an outdated version that many people
> happen to use. Of course you can keep using 0.5 and slowly watch it
> die, or even try to keep it alive. But the freenet team wants you to
> populate 0.7 so they can improve it. It's unfortunate that it scares
> away a few users too lazy to run 0.7 but they will come back once it's
> better and stable.
>
> On 8/22/06, an ominous cow herd <freenetproject at americancheeze.com> wrote:
> > I don't think that the 0.5 network needs active coding. It's fine the way it
> > is. It should be stated that there will be no patches or bug fixes for the
> > 0.5 network, but putting it in small print and calling it "unsupported" 
> > while
> > directing new users to the alpha 0.7 network just doesn't make sense. The
> > 0.5 network should be called the stable version and 0.7 should be the
> > unstable version, just like it was done in the past. If users ask questions,
> > they should be directed to the wiki. Why the big push to get new users on
> > the 0.7 network while it's still in the alpha stage?
> >
> > On Monday 21 August 2006 14:35, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > We don't have a big enough team to actively support both.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 11:31:38PM -0700, an ominous cow herd wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday 19 August 2006 08:11, - wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you're making a mistake in forcing new people into the beta
> > > > > test freenet 0.7 instead of the established 0.5.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're forgetting how _highly_ someone new has to be motivated to try
> > > > > freenet, even version 0.5 which works and is not a beta test. Let's
> > > > > think about what would motivate someone...
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember when I found freenet, I installed it spent hours reading
> > > > > over the technical jargon.
> > > > > It was incredible slow. I removed it thinking this is a pile of crap
> > > > > that does not work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only a few months later, did I again bother to go through this
> > > > > complicated process and after waiting for three days with it on, it
> > > > > finally started working.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason I spent many hours and went back after throwing it out 
> > > > > once,
> > > > > was because I was _highly motivated_ for the anonymity and content.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the problem:
> > > > >
> > > > > If 0.7 doesn't offer the anonymity and the content, plus it's an
> > > > > unstable beta test,
> > > > > why would anyone new bother to join the community?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you think people are nice enough to offer their time and computers
> > > > > to beta test some random highly technical peer to peer application 
> > > > > that
> > > > > completely hogs your computer's resources?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with freenet (even 0.5) is, it just isn't user friendly.
> > > > > A person who just stumbles on freenet does not know if it's actually
> > > > > going to work. After seeing how slow it is, most people, like myself
> > > > > will just get rid of it, not bothering to learn all the 
> > > > > configurations,
> > > > > frost, fuqid, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you took the time to create a simple, down-to-earth website and
> > > > > install program without all the technical jargon, you would double or
> > > > > triple your user base.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only NEW users you're going to get to freenet 0.7 are going to be
> > > > > peer-to-peer programming enthusiasts. And how many of those are there
> > > > > that don't know about freenet already?
> > > > >
> > > > > So instead of scaring all potential freenet users away, It would be
> > > > > wiser to just ask members of the freenet community to do the beta
> > > > > testing, and create a nice user friendly website for 0,5 until 0,7 is
> > > > > working. Even I would be willing to help create this website, and I'm
> > > > > sure many other people also would volunteer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Van
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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?subjectunsubscribe
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 

_______________________________________________
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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060824/0829dcf5/attachment.html>

Reply via email to