Re: Cache and Store

* Bob Ham <[email protected]> [2007-05-10 21:45:59]:

> 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.

Indeed... and experience has shown that it works.

NextGen$

_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGQ4TpU/Z/dHFfxtcRAr5WAJ4h9ioWH/SU+zW8P/CbL4NL2IMhIACeIImT
Gmh2UarFp2eLiXQBXXVr8hc=
=WOKi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----