freed...@freedman.net (Avi Freedman) writes: > I understand that opinion but I don't believe that will enable the > largest growth of the LAFS-ecosystem.
That's a fair point. > Maybe I'm wrong but I think the large mass of users will remain > locked out of being able to install and configure daemons - but > finding 10s or 100s providers to use that can offer S3, SWIFT, or > is doable now - and doesn't diminish the market that (I think) > LeastAuthority and Havenco are trying to address. So a way forward that is not so objectionable architecturally and addresses your usability concerns is to use some sort of python vfs interface with multiple backends. Then at least it's not tahoe reimplementing 12 wheels, but a larger python vfs community jointly reinventing them only once (and perhaps a few that are done there first). To me, this is an important distinction, where tahoe would only have to support the generic module. This is much like p5-DBD and 10 flavors of p5-DBB-Foo, except hopefully without the pain of backend-dependent SQL leaking through. Are you thining of this as users having access to a hosted service (VPS?) running a node, where they lack administrative control, but want to set up a backend using a cloud storage service for the ciphertext? Or is this about users on locked-down corporate laptops? Or people who just aren't comfortable?
pgpw4OTCBRF2x.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
