Re: Cache and Store
Bob Ham <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.freenet.technical |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 12:53 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Thursday 10 May 2007 11:52, Florent Daignière wrote: > > * Matthew Toseland <toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]> [2007-05-10 11:31:22]: > > > > > > As long as it's an expert option, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't > > > be accepted. > > > > Preventing users from their stupidity ? > > > > We don't want everyone to have a cache but no specialized data on the > > basis that "with a bigger cache downloads are 'resuming' ; I don't care > > about others nor the network so I only cache" > > Fair point. If they want to break their node that much they can maintain a > fork. This is a real cognitive problem showing up right there. It isn't your responsibility to second-guess the user. There are valid reasons for the node to have this functionality. The only reason for it not to is to inhibit users. That's what Microsoft do. Bob -- Bob Ham <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 189 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGQ4SH7whsMRnFexQRAnjtAJwNhMu7iMeYpKdSf0I7/fyqqFn9tgCfdJcH S1oA5MtnJeu20lXl+XC5YAg= =gfRJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----