Re: Cache and Store

On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 22:47 +0200, Florent Daignière wrote:
> * 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.

What do you mean "it works"?  What does it work to do?

Bob

-- 
Bob Ham <[email protected]>

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

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

iD8DBQBGRBkV7whsMRnFexQRAuGxAJ44YFUVtrqxe0gCK0aqwzyQesFCawCeJfFK
8bicSRt6wV7GbQXxminDzvs=
=+FuH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----