-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 27 May 2006, at 12:43, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 10:32:48AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: >> People are already starting to kludge their own mechanisms for adding >> connections via FProxy, for example: >> >> http://www.sinnerg.dotgeek.org/freenet/ >> >> The sooner we can support this explicitly using FCP, the less messy >> this is going to be... > > Come on, do you really think that would help matters? We have enough > people trying to hack their own broken opennets together already > without > making life easier for them! As I have said several times before, making it easy for people to connect to each-other is CRITICAL to Freenet's success. Part of achieving this means we need to open up this functionality via FCP. Your assumption that this will inevitably be abused and therefore should not be provided is patronizing in the extreme, and a rather moot point since the absence of this functionality is proving to be no barrier to people just hacking scripts together which talk to FProxy. So, tell me, which do you prefer - hacked up solutions which add connections via FProxy, or a proper solution for connection management via FCP. Those are the two options on the table, and right now, through lack of choice, people are opting for the first one. Ian. - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEeM1gQtgxRWSmsqwRAsq0AJ9T8f4p/Y/zHWcdwo3ANyqBPjWB4QCfRQ21 4yFjOVLvACFuLR5nGH7ui4o= =EHRv - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEeM1uQtgxRWSmsqwRAhGHAJ4rTbyTFsjT9M5GtMEddofVj5jIIACfftP6 iD2B3vxXFmsEq7ytkfpwRn8= =PJu3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----