2008/3/4 Matthew Toseland <toad@???>:
> On Tuesday 04 March 2008 18:04, bbackde@??? wrote:
> > In the current discussions I miss one thing. Everyone wants to start
> > his own thingy.
> > It would be much more effective if all interested parties get
> > together, decide about a design
> > and then implement it _together_! SomeDude wrote fms and got some
> > experience with the
> > web of trust, now we start a WoT from scratch. Seagull already has a
> > working (not completed)
> > version of FMS in Java, but we start something different?
>
> It would be great to see some code!
>
Ack! I am in contact with seagull, I hope we see the code in some SVN soon.
>
> > Is the FMS port unneeded then? Or should WoT and FMS be competitors?
> >
> > No offense, I just wanted to read your thinkings about this :)
> >
> > I also experienced this with Frost: I am the only true Frost developer
> > for a long time now,
> > and again and again someone came up with its own new tools. I love
> > competition, but
> > as you all know there is alot to do in Frost, and we would have made a
> > much better tool
> > for all users if we would have worked together on Frost.
>
> Well, with FMS, hopefully there will only be one implementation for the
> foreseeable future. I get the impression batosai is getting impatient though.
> I would be if I wasn't barred from working on it. :)
I understand, really. But Julien, do you really want to start with a
new WoT design instead
of using something which currently works (fms)? We have the C code for
this implementation,
and its Java port also (soon). Do you think current fms isn't the right thing?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> Tech@???
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
>
--
__________________________________________________
GnuPG key: (0x48DBFA8A)
Keyserver: pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de
Fingerprint:
477D F057 1BD4 1AE7 8A54 8679 6690 E2EC 48DB FA8A
__________________________________________________
