qcl820DV34
Joined 5 months ago
Karma
210
Submissions
7
Member since
May 21
Recent submissions
Comment · 1 month ago
Comment · 5 months ago
Repeating a bad decision does not make it any wiser.
Comment · 5 months ago
The issue is that the original name, "Freenet", was repurposed for a different codebase.
Comment · 5 months ago
> Incorrect, I raised the issue with the lead maintainer over a year prior to that announcement.
The previous lead maintainer, Steve, voiced their frustration with your decision here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg5526...
To which you sent a brash reply, which sounds like you don't know Steve's position in the community:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg5526...
To which the current lead maintainer, Arne, said he agrees with the sentiment of Steve:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg5526...
So if you discussed this with Arne for a year, then why does he agree with the frustration of Steve?
And even if the discussion with Arne happened, it still was a backroom decision:
Two people are not representative on a project with plenty of developers and an active community.
> As the project's architect I'm entitled to make decisions about the project's future direction.
A sense of entitlement is not a leadership quality.
A leadership quality would be to admit a mistake:
That repurposing the name was not only bad for the original project,
but also for the new one (because these discussions will haunt it forever),
and to then rename the new project to a fresh name which no other software used before.
Comment · 5 months ago
> and after over a year of debate
There was no "year of debate".
You came to the mailing list and announced it for the first time as a finalized decision already,
without any prior debate with the original team.
The "board" you cited as the body which allegedly discussed it did neither join the mailing list discussion,
nor were you willing to hand out their contact info.
It's all public for anyone to see on the mailing list archive:
Comment · 5 months ago
Extremely depraved things are not the only thing to use freedom of speech for,
and freely speaking can result in all kinds of repressions.
And even without agreeing on whether people should be anonymous on the Internet,
it could be agreed that replacing a software which guards against a certain threat model (repressions) with one which does not,
without changing the name, is not exactly a wise decision.
Comment · 5 months ago
Notably this project was conceived by a backroom decision to dump the original Freenet development team's work,
in favor of a rewrite from different developers, without asking anyone on the original team.
It was an ivory tower decision which was announced on the mailing list without prior discussion.
The old team did not agree, yet it was forced through by a decision of the "board".
The "board" was a group of people which had not been active on the project for over a decade.
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg5526...
The funding of the existing, original "Freenet" was repurposed for the new one of course.
The new "Freenet" does not have anonymity as a design goal anymore,
while the old one continues to exist and is maintained under its new name "Hyphanet" at:
Hyphanet (formerly Freenet) works, people are actually using it.
Meanwhile, almost every single day there is news on hackernews about the corporate surveillance dystopia that the regular internet has become.
Yet a project which provides actually private, anonymous communication and publishing, and has a track record of decades of doing so, is attacked with such vitriol.
You should rather ask yourself:
Are you doing society a service by trying to discourage the very few people who, as unpaid volunteers, actually provide an alternative to the adtech-funded walled garden that the internet is nowadays?