On Thursday 03 July 2008 01:50, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Edgar Friendly <thelema314 at gmail.com> [2008-07-02 19:46:34]: > > > Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > I have no problem with you (or anybody else) using the tools they want. > > > I just don't want brazillion of incompatible/forked clients to spawn up > > > in the wild and to connect to the main network. > > > > Reflecting on this idea, I think it'd be good (in the long run) if this > > did happen. Of course the network would get disrupted, but I thought > > that the idea of Freenet was to have a disruption-resistant network. > > And a brazillion forks means many new developers trying changes. If the > > project doesn't reject their changes, they would become a great force > > for building a better Fred. > > > > OTOH, without DSCM, forked clients will still exist, it'll just be > > tougher to keep them up to date and to merge any improvements back to > > the official client. > > > > $0.02 from an oldie, > > > > E. > > Heh, I'm not against the idea here; I'm just being pragmatic: we don't > have the resources to deal with forked clients.
It's an emergent system, 100 clients each with slightly different behaviour will kill it. > > NextGen$ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20080704/a9d6880c/attachment.pgp>
