> On 27 Nov 2014, at 17:15, David T. Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 04:19:20PM +0100, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >> >>> On 27 Nov 2014, at 16:05, Levente Uzonyi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Noury Bouraqadi wrote: >>> >>>> SmalltalkHub is slow, so don?t click too fast :-( >>>> >>>> While I?m grateful to developers of SmalltalkHub and previously >>>> SqueakSource, I believe as a small community, we cannot afford developing >>>> everything by ourselves. We don?t have enough man-power. We can see the >>>> symptoms since SmalltalkHub is in beta stage since way too long... >>> >>> People on this list used to say the same about squeaksource.com. But it >>> has been working flawlessly since it got updated to the latest version >>> (which implies that a few bugs got fixed). >>> >>> What makes you think that tracking down the bugs in SmalltalkHub and fixing >>> them wouldn't be enough? >>> >>> Based on my experience a single image - running well designed software - is >>> able to serve about ten million requests a day. I think that the actual >>> load on smalltalkhub.com is about three magnitudes lower than that. >> >> because: >> 1) the reason why squeaksource survived is because there is an smalltalkhub >> absorbing most of the packages. > > No. The reason that squeaksource.com survived is that someone decided to put > effort into maintaining it.
well, that’s your perception. Mine is that sthub took out from ss 150k packages, and all pharo infrastructure requirements (a lot, believe me… we are almost 24h/7 downloading packages and running different processes). still…if you put enough effort you can keep anything running, of course. But you will always need that extra effort. Thinking in the long term, that does not scales unless you have an organisation that scales. Or unless you have a community that does not change. I prefer to believe that all our predictions will become small in time, and then I prefer to think that in the long term is better to have an up-to-date infrastructure, that is capable to absorb our growing without taking much effort from our part. ah, and btw… smalltalkhub works quite fine. It just have problems on safari, because of the version we are using of amber. then, is running in a virtualisation system, so time to time it becomes slow. we can fix the second one paying a better server :) Esteban > > The same will be true for SmalltalkHub. If you decide to make it work, then > you will succeed. If you decide that it is not worth the effort, then it will > fail. > > Dave > > >> 2) I never say it was not possible to keep it running. I said it does not >> worth the effort, which is a complete different thing. Of course, if someone >> wants to take smalltalkhub (there is even a configuration for it) and fix >> the problems that emerge, I will be more than happy to update the production >> image. >> >> Esteban >> >>> >>> Levente >>> >>>> >>>> It?s better to use some mainstream platform such as github. >>>> We?ll we have support for it in Pharo 4? >>>> >>>> It would be interesting also from the communication point of view to make >>>> the world a little bit more aware of Pharo. >>>> >>>> Noury >> >
