[Tech] Cache and Store

[Bob Ham]

On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 15:25 +0200, Florent Daignière wrote:
> * Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-11 14:08:32]:
> 
> > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 12:42 +0200, Florent Daignière wrote:
> > > * Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-11 08:19:49]:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 22:47 +0200, Florent Daignière wrote:
> > > > > * Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [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?
> > > > 
> > > ...
> >
> > 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.

I couldn't see anything relating to inhibiting users in the part that I
stripped.  Also, I'm still not sure what the answer to my question is.

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.  There's a goal which you're saying
is achieved by inhibiting users (at least that's what I understand by
the phrase "it works.")  What is the goal?  What does inhibiting users
achieve?

Bob

-- 
Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20070511/5010649e/attachment.pgp