So that's why he would never pass forum administration to the other guy. For anyone who's caught by surprise, you should look at his portable Gamecube.
Could you change the name? Since there hasn't been a release yet, it would break nothing, and there's already a project (that you also started, but that is used by more people, since it is released software) that was named Freenet, that would probably like its name back.
Reusing the name of a longstanding software project for a similar but distinct project with wildly different security guarantees is hazardous; it means that existing documentation which directs people to use "Freenet" in a specific way may expose them to unexpected risks. Please reconsider.
The name belongs to the non-profit and not a specific codebase, the previous codebase had itself a number of fundamental rewrites (eg. with the 0.7 release) and retained the name Freenet through them - this is no different.
The name change decision was made over a year ago after a long debate and very careful consideration. There is risk but risk is inevitable if you want to make progress.
> The name change decision was made over a year ago after a long debate and very careful consideration.
There was no "careful consideration" whatsoever.
What you did was the opposite of careful in fact:
Without ANY prior discussion with the maintainers of the existing Freenet project you came to the mailing list and DICTATED your decision of reusing the name "Freenet".
It's all publicly documented in the mailing list archive, see the thread "Important Announcement: Freenet naming change" of Ian Clarke (Ian Clarke is the user "sanity" I am replying to here):
When you dictated this, the team said they're against it - and you did it anyway.
Yes, you claimed you discussed it with the "board" of the project!
But the "board" only contains people who haven't talked to the team in over a decade. Of course they shrugged off your decision because the only way they are in contact with the project is through what you say, so you can shape their opinion however you please by selectively deciding what you tell them.
It was a very sad act of disgracing the effort of volunteer contributors.
And it isn't even in the best interest of your new project either, because it seems to haunt every discussion about it.
How about thinking about whether you made a mistake?
Mistakes happen and aren't bad. What's bad is never admitting one.
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, but I need to correct some inaccuracies in your comment.
The decision to rebrand Locutus as Freenet 2023 was not made lightly or without discussion. On the contrary, I had an extensive discussion with the lead maintainer of the original codebase starting over a year before the decision was announced.
The primary reason for the redesign was to address the significant changes in technology and the web since the original Freenet was first designed in 1999 and underwent its last major redesign in 2005. These different eras brought different technologies and problems. To effectively address today's challenges, a comprehensive redesign was necessary.
As the architect of Freenet, it was my responsibility to make this decision based on what would lead to the best end result, even if it wasn't the most popular choice. The goal was to create software that could gain sufficient adoption to tackle the serious problems we're seeing with centralization today.
I understand that this decision was controversial and not everyone agreed with it. However, it was made to ensure that Freenet could continue to innovate and adapt in the face of modern challenges. Mistakes can happen, but in this case, the decision was made with careful consideration and a focus on the long-term goals of the project. I stand by my decision.
I appreciate the contributions of all volunteers and maintainers, and I deeply respect their work. The goal was never to overshadow their efforts but to build on the legacy of Freenet in a way that meets current and future needs.
I hope this clarifies the situation and provides some context for the decision.
I'm not going to change the name again. I carefully weighed up the pros and cons over the course of a year - debating the issue with those that disagreed. Eventually I made a call as the architect of Freenet. It's not without risk, but risks are sometimes necessary.
People are entitled to disagree but I'm not going to relitigate it at this point.
East Asian wars tend to be drastically more deadly than the wars of any other group. The Three Kingdoms War wiped China's population to 30% of what it once was, and had half the deaths of WWII in a world with two hundred million people instead of billions.
It's Dedoimedo. The entire point of Dedoimedo is whining loudly about whatever gets reviewed. If he stopped complaining about things his audience paid him to complain about, they would stop paying him enough money for overpriced vehicles that he then could complain about in an overly-braggadocios manner.
Easter weekend is arguably the best weekend to do something like this. It's not an actual holiday, so there are none of the normal precautions taken around bank holidays (bank vaults tend to have a lot of the money moved out around bank holidays), but much of your staff (and external forces, like cops) will be away outright or preoccupied.
It makes the entire thing far more seamless, and gives you a better window to get away with it.
The difference is that in the UK (where Hatton Gardens is), both Good Friday and Easter Monday are public/bank holidays.
At least in the UK, it's one of the few times that there are a guaranteed 4 days of closures, given that Christmas can fall on different days of the week each year.
In the UK both Christmas and the following day (Boxing day) are public holidays and the holidays will move to the next working days if they fall on the weekend. So this is the other time of year that can have 4 consecutive days of public holidays/closures.
> However, one key patent — the "840" patent — is not set to expire until 2033. To stave off potential competitors, it describes the AIM technology very broadly. In a surprise move at February's CPSC hearing, TTS Tooltechnic Systems North America CEO Matt Howard announced that the company would "dedicate the 840 patent to the public" if a new safety standard were adopted. Howard says that this would free up rivals to pursue their own safety devices or simply copy SawStop's. At the hearing, he challenged them "to get in the game."
So there apparently is still a patent in effect. They claim they'll dedicate it to the public, though it's unclear what that means in this case. Maybe they should preemptively do so before any laws are passed, especially if they're pushing for its widespread use anyway.
reply