[smhenderson]

While I disagree with parent comment I think it was meant to draw a comparison between GNUnet and IPv6. As in "we can't get people to adopt IPv6 despite it's being backed by just about every large tech company, how is GNU going to get people to switch to this?".

At least that's how I read it. But as another poster pointed out I don't believe it's GNU's intention to get the whole world to switch, just make it available and if people can and want to use it they will. And then hopefully those people make it easier and easier for others to use it.

[MaxBarraclough]

> I think it was meant to draw a comparison between GNUnet and IPv6

That's what I'd intended, yes. I wasn't terribly clear.

> I don't believe it's GNU's intention to get the whole world to switch

I hope you're right, but they used 'replace'. Them's fightin' words.

Normally, projects go out of their way to clarify where hostility is not intended. I seem to recall LLVM/Clang being quite explicit about their not intending to kill GCC, for instance. (Annoyingly, I can't find a source for this.)

[ng0]

> but they used 'replace'. Them's fightin' words.

You are welcome to communicate feedback to our (GNUnet) mailinglists. We are in the process of replacing the website (Drupal is good, but doesn't get the job done anymore for us), so if there are problems (even if just interpretation problems or tiny things that throw you off) I invite you to send them to the appropriate mailinglist listed at https://gnunet.org/contact_information

We appreciate any kind of feedback.

[ng0]

I've read into this again. 'Replacing' will be clear from context. This was added very recently (2016?) to the homepage by myself and to the official description.

The Manual (the pushed content as well as my stacks of old fashioned paper corrections) is not mentioning it. For the new website it (the description) either will be described as it is right now (unlikely) or rewritten to be easier to understand.