4 ms·
The issue is that the original name, "Freenet", was repurposed for a different codebase.
by qcl820DV34 5mo ago
The issue is that the original name, "Freenet", was repurposed for a different codebase.
- sanity 5mo agoDifferent codebase, same purpose. This isn't even the first time we did a ground-up redesign/rewrite of the Freenet codebase, we did this in 2008 with the 0.7 release.
- qcl820DV34 5mo agoRepeating a bad decision does not make it any wiser.
- sanity 5mo agoHistory will be the judge, and so far it's looking very promising given our progress.
- darig 5mo ago[dead]
- 16bitvoid 5mo agoWhat does your progress have to do with the name? You're so defensive that you're reasoning with non sequiturs.
- sanity 5mo agoWhat would your success metric be for whether reusing the name was the right decision?
- 16bitvoid 5mo agoCommunity size and positive community feedback, which is somewhat tangential to progress, which I assume is in the context of development. Also, the rate at which the original freenet community declines. Number of contributors or pull requests isn't a good metric at the moment since the advent of Claude Code et al. has seen a dramatic uptick in both everywhere.
- sanity 5mo agoHow is it tangential? Technical success is the primary driver of community growth, adoption, and long-term viability. The more it can do, and the better it does it, the more people will use it.
- lallysingh 5mo agoShould've called the new one Freenet 2 or Freenet NT.
- FEELmyAGI 5mo agoNeither of you get to be freenet, another project with the name predated it by a lot. and throughout the 90s many ISPs were named $PLACENAME_freenet https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cleveland-freenet https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cleveland-freenet