[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Open questions regarding new messenger and secushare and organizatio

From: t3sserakt
Subject: Re: Open questions regarding new messenger and secushare and organization Was: Make GNUnet Great Again
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 11:14:09 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.1

On 15.11.20 10:13, carlo von lynX wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:36:21PM +0100, Christian Grothoff wrote:
- 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?

As someone started joining secushare before working on GNUnet I like to remember everybody here that in the end it makes no difference to distinguish between secushare or GNUnet being vaporware, because we all want to fix the same problem!

Calling secushare vapoware is not wrong, but it was no good idea to do so, without to be clear about the reasons for that!

From the release 0.14.0 news item:

"only suitable for early adopters with some reasonable pain tolerance"

It is not only users, but also developers who need to have pain tolerance, because this is no sprint but a marathon to get things working. Our main problem is still resources, because it is not easy to find developers with the needed expertise and pain tolerance who want to work as a volunteer or for less money they could get working for some company with a lot of money.

So please - I can understand all the frustration, but we should go on together and work on those details that are needed to fix right now.

Happy hacking!


Attachment: OpenPGP_0x524982A0100F7490.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]