Re: Open questions regarding new messenger and secushare and organization Was: Make GNUnet Great Again

[carlo von lynX]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:36:21PM +0100, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> gtk+: I'm still undecided ;-).

Since most of GNUnet apps have nothing to do with file sharing,
all of file sharing would deserve its own repo. That implies
a split of gnunet-gtk.

> > - Is "messenger" a part of "secushare"?
> 
> In my view, it's a fresh attempt to build something that might be
> considered part of / become part of the secushare vision. That said, I
> think its premature given that messenger clearly is still evolving, and
> secushare remains largely vaporware
> (Secushare-people: do correct me if I am wrong here).

Well, GNUnet remains largely vaporware and each time we tried to get
a minor thing working in secushare we ran into fundamental issues on
the GNUnet level that needed addressing first… your public announcement
for 0.14 still provides no guarantees that CADET, core and transport
will do their jobs - although nearly nothing can be built on top while
that isn't the case.

> That's the key point: if someone maintains it, it can come back.

How can you expect that we maintain a project that would be a kind
of Facebook replacement if the replacement for HTTPS still isn't
reliably working? On the contrary, since you lured us into writing so
much code for a dysfunctional framework underneath, I consider it
your social reponsibility to keep the code up to date through *your*
API changes, and not us! *You* should maintain secushare! And do the
best to motivate us to come back and work for you. We invested years
into YOUR project and you call US vaporware after all of that?

> My 2 cents
> 
> Christian

-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
   //  http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
  //    irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
 //    https://psyced.org/LynX/