Re: Cache and Store
Florent Daignière <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.freenet.technical |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
* Bob Ham <[email protected]> [2007-05-11 14:08:32]: > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 12:42 +0200, Florent Daignière wrote: > > * Bob Ham <[email protected]> [2007-05-11 08:19:49]: > > > > > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 22:47 +0200, Florent Daignière wrote: > > > > * Bob Ham <[email protected]> [2007-05-10 21:45:59]: > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > Shall I remind you that > > ... > > ... > > ... > > ... > > ... > > ... > > ... > > hence > > I'm against letting him play with the ratio of the cache/store. > > You didn't answer the question. What do you mean "it works"? I did in the part you've stripped. Inhibiting users seems to be something that most of them like. Feel free to explain to me why the lack of that feature is a problem now. NextGen$ _______________________________________________ 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) iD8DBQFGRG7EU/Z/dHFfxtcRAsC/AKCnqr42ydJIEOCXxxtgXZoYl/cshwCffgAL qa6ZVF3DtppdLTAQTRiQ2is= =s8yX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----