[I've changed the subject line.]
2009/3/11 Lars Aronsson <l...@aronsson.se>: > If the content is free, people don't need to drink from our > watertap. It's the water that's important, not the tap. We could > have a minimal webserver to receive new edits. Serving replication > feeds to a handful of media corporations (who might pay for it!) > should be far cheaper than to receive all this web traffic. Some > universities might serve up ad-free mirrors. We could be the > Associated Press instead of the New York Times, the producer > instead of the retailer. > Or is the fact that we spend so much to maintain the 7th most > visited website an admission to the fact that the space between > the copies actually has a great value to us? A value that will be > strengthened by cementing its URL and/or the name Wikipedia > (attributing the project) into the new license? > I'm not against that. I will go with whatever. I'm very flexible > and I still think this is a very fun technical experiment. But I > think the change is worth some consideration. This is somewhat true. MediaWiki still needs a bloody huge central database server (or three) and so it has them. I suppose the place to ask your question is on wikitech-l. Being able to duplicate the infrastructure is necessary for forking to be meaningful: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/04/10/disaster-recovery-planning/ I'm not sure anything listed there has meaningfully changed in the last two years. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l