Re: [Mldonkey-users] User Management in 2.03

[Martin Kuhlmann]

Hi Martin,

Du schriebst am Mittwoch, 12. März 2003 um 20:39:30:

>> It will cost money and
>> if you want to sleep in the same room its noise, too. Or you ended up
>> running a instance of mldonkey per user, with its own ports and
>> directorys, its cpu-usage, memory-usage, its own bandwidthconsuming
>> upload and so on.
> already have 2 mldonkeys running....no problems over here!

And you like it the way it is? 2 ppl downloading the same => you have
to download the same twice? It's ineffective und inefficient... you
are running two instances. Why do you not use a single apache for each
page you have or a single ftp-server for each user and/or directory
you have? It's the same as it is with mldonkey. There are many other
examples....

>> So a multi-user system is needed. End of this point.
> i doubt that - im using mld for quite some time and it never came to
> my mind

But that doesn't mean its not in the pot for other users...

>> If you think it is a feature you don't need, please don't say that
>> everyone not your opinion is dumb and deserves a visit from whoever.
> i didnt say that - read before repliying...i said everyone who *tells*
> other people he's downloading illegal stuff deserves that....and thats
> what you are doing: offering other people to download whatever using
> your computer - so you are responsible for that - you alone!

I read... and this is the way I understand it: Multiuser => You are
not the only one using it => you are dumb that you only want other ppl
to have access to your mldonkey. So its as i said it: implicit you say
that everyone who wants a mu-system is dumb. Your opinion is that a
mu-system is stupid and we doesn't need it. So you are offending ppl
which disagree with you. If its not as I said then please, don't make
the impression.

>> So, don't ague against something you don't want or understand. Let the
>> devs do what they think is best and just deactivate it if you don't
>> need it.
> i *do* understand - quite well i think...blowing up the (far from
> beeing perfect or complete) mldonkey client with a multi-user system 
> (which has to be included to almost every part of mld) to introduce
> many (not only security-) problems.

There. Your last sentence gives everyone the impression that you not
only disagree but to blame all actual and possible bugs and design
weaknesses on those in disagreement with you. Not the best way. You
not only disagree, i got the impression you fight against this feature
everyone finds so useful.

> And i think as this list is read by the developpers its the right
> point to discuss something like that.

I meant the question 'do we need it' and as i see it you are the only
one against this with a lot of ppl on the other side. So get used to
the idea of a multi-user p2p client.

> the real important things (downloading/uploading/server+client+source
> management) but working on fancy interfaces and mu-systems)

The work on the fancy interfaces is done mostly by someone outside the
dev team. So thats not a point you get. And as it looks the mu-system
is needed.... and last: you can disagree, but you can not order
someone (especialy in an open source project like mldonkey) to not
work on a feature you don't like.

Gruß,
  Martin

-- 
PGP public key ID:  0x27D580B5
PGP public key fingerprint: 3761 E66D 8600 EF88  A547 65B7 1CBC 1F8F