Not for nothing, but I don't really think that Freetalk needs a public name anyway. Users Don't look at Freenet as a platform... We might get there someday, but everything I've seen in the irc channel, the support list, and talking with friends indicates that people look at Freenet as a program - Advanced users think of it as a protocol, which is under development and only used by Freenet, it's main program.
No one I've ever talked to has thought of it as a platform for applications to be developed on. This means that Freetalk isn't it's own independent entity, that runs on top of Freenet.. FreeTalk would be "Posting a message on Freenet" FreeMail is "Sending a personal message over Freenet" FreeTalk is "Posting to a Freenet Forum" Fproxy loaded pages are "Websites on Freenet" etc, etc. I think this is the right behavior to encourage, because it helps make Freenet understandable. -CPD > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Toseland < > toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > >> On Tuesday 26 May 2009 16:42:55 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote: >> > djk at isFiaD04zgAgnrEC5XJt1i4IE7AkNPqhBG5bONi6Yks wrote : >> > > http://www.gnu.org/software/freetalk/ >> >> Every reasonably interesting name is already in use. :| >> >> Suggestions for renaming Freetalk are welcome as far as I am concerned. >> > > We should stick with "Freetalk" unless someone comes up with a clearly > better name that isn't taken. > > The "freetalk" software you mention is not high-profile, and I think we > are > placing an excessive restriction on ourselves if we must find an > absolutely > unique name - we'll end up having to call it something like > "f745jhgf!!&p". > > Ian. > > -- > Ian Clarke > CEO, Uprizer Labs > Email: ian at uprizer.com > Ph: +1 512 422 3588 > Fax: +1 512 276 6674 > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
