On Thursday, August 5, 2004, at 08:04 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
i think he meant a mirrored version of dan's page so his box won't
spontaneously combust under slashdot loads. so the idea for smaller
sites (which are probably not revenue based) would get mirrored on slash
so you can read the linked page and not fry the hosts.
The question is one that seems to be frequently asked of slashdot <http://slashdot.org/faq/suggestions.shtml#su900>. Their FAQ entry does a fairly good job of describing many of the opinions of the issue, and I figured I'd bring up one of them that hadn't been discussed in this thread.
Yes, slashdot could probably mirror small sites so the server goes down. No, they probably shouldn't mirror sites that are big enough to have their own legal department (or gain some of the resources of the corporate parent's legal department.) Yes, it might be helpful to site owners to ask permission before posting a link to a site. No, slashdot's readers probably don't want to wait until the permission is granted. How long do you wait for a response to a "can I link" message? I don't know. Is no response a yes, or a no? I don't know that either.
What kind of sites should or shouldn't be mirrored? If you say "commercial sites shouldn't be mirrored, personal sites should", then where do you put something like Tim Bray's blog <http://www.tbray.org/ongoing>? Would he rather receive the Google AdSense revenue or save on his bandwidth costs? What about the small commercial sites, (some little tiny site selling bobblehead Daleks or something, that suddenly piques the interest of everyone.)
If someone wants to submit a link to Dan's blog to slashdot, they should probably talk to him about either mirroring it or hosting it for him. Don't leave it up to slashdot to do the right thing for the author.
_______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
