Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dells are backdored

[Liam Wyatt]

As a non-technical person on this list, I have no idea what you just said
Lesile (and Tim, earlier in this thread) but I greatly enjoyed reading it!
Keep up the good work :-)
-Liam / Wittylama

On Tuesday, 31 December 2013, Leslie Carr wrote:

> Oh man ---
>
> The trolling here is amazing!!!
>
> First off, you can't just plug a fiber cable into an ethernet socket.
> You need at least SFP+'s for 10G fiber connections, plus the cost of
> fiber itself -- it's way more expensive than a 100mbit connection.
>
> That said, we do use SFP+ based 10G for our varnish layer -- the
> amount of traffic pushed by those boxes compared to the amount it
> would cost to buy a bunch of additional machines makes the extra cost
> of the interfaces (and don't forget the switch ports! 10G switches
> cost more than 100mbit switches) make perfect financial sense.
>
> Leslie
>
> PS - someone technical may point out that DAC (which is copper! gasp!)
> is cheaper than two SFP+'s and a fiber cable.  That's true!  However
> we have had major issues with DAC compatibility on the switch side,
> and some issues on the hardware side.  SFP+'s rarely (albeit
> occasionally) have that issue.  Plus we can keep a spare inventory
> that is usable in multiple places, making our sparing easier and life
> easier on the DC techs when we need to scramble for an unexpected 10G
> need.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:10 PM, James Salsman 
> >
> wrote:
> >> Maximum 100 Mbps ethernet connection
> >
> > We should be using fiber, which also costs less power and is orders of
> > magnitude faster.
> >
> > If the words "enterprise-class" actually mean something more than
> > "much larger markup than purchasing components" then go with something
> > like http://www.marvell.com/company/news/pressDetail.do?releaseID=3576
> >
> > For example, maybe the http://www.mitac.com/business/gfx_servers.html
> > people have benchmarks representative of our DB/cache usage patterns.
> > It's not like we have anything special (or x86-specific, Jasper!)
> > other than very high bandwidth.
> >
> > At least put out an RFP, please.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>  ?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Leslie Carr
> Wikimedia Foundation
> AS 14907, 43821
> http://as14907.peeringdb.com/
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>  ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[K. Peachey]

Can't we please kept this to one thread were possible? This is now the
third I believe.

On Tuesday, December 31, 2013, James Salsman wrote:

> > Neither of Calxeda's articles gives a figure for capital cost
>
> I think they went under the moment their first competitor charging typical
> markups (Mitac) started shipping. Get some GFX servers and some of these to
> do your own tests: http://www.mitac.com/Business/7-Star.html
>
> > you can't just plug a fiber cable into an ethernet socket
>
> The RADXA Rock includes SPDIF, and it's open source. Spare fiber isn't more
> expensive than spare Ethernet, but it's far more resistant to
> eavesdropping. http://wiki.radxa.com/Rock/hardware_revision
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>  ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile on my iPod.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[James Salsman]

> Neither of Calxeda's articles gives a figure for capital cost

I think they went under the moment their first competitor charging typical
markups (Mitac) started shipping. Get some GFX servers and some of these to
do your own tests: http://www.mitac.com/Business/7-Star.html

> you can't just plug a fiber cable into an ethernet socket

The RADXA Rock includes SPDIF, and it's open source. Spare fiber isn't more
expensive than spare Ethernet, but it's far more resistant to
eavesdropping. http://wiki.radxa.com/Rock/hardware_revision
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dells are backdored

[Leslie Carr]

Oh man ---

The trolling here is amazing!!!

First off, you can't just plug a fiber cable into an ethernet socket.
You need at least SFP+'s for 10G fiber connections, plus the cost of
fiber itself -- it's way more expensive than a 100mbit connection.

That said, we do use SFP+ based 10G for our varnish layer -- the
amount of traffic pushed by those boxes compared to the amount it
would cost to buy a bunch of additional machines makes the extra cost
of the interfaces (and don't forget the switch ports! 10G switches
cost more than 100mbit switches) make perfect financial sense.

Leslie

PS - someone technical may point out that DAC (which is copper! gasp!)
is cheaper than two SFP+'s and a fiber cable.  That's true!  However
we have had major issues with DAC compatibility on the switch side,
and some issues on the hardware side.  SFP+'s rarely (albeit
occasionally) have that issue.  Plus we can keep a spare inventory
that is usable in multiple places, making our sparing easier and life
easier on the DC techs when we need to scramble for an unexpected 10G
need.


On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:10 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>> Maximum 100 Mbps ethernet connection
>
> We should be using fiber, which also costs less power and is orders of
> magnitude faster.
>
> If the words "enterprise-class" actually mean something more than
> "much larger markup than purchasing components" then go with something
> like http://www.marvell.com/company/news/pressDetail.do?releaseID=3576
>
> For example, maybe the http://www.mitac.com/business/gfx_servers.html
> people have benchmarks representative of our DB/cache usage patterns.
> It's not like we have anything special (or x86-specific, Jasper!)
> other than very high bandwidth.
>
> At least put out an RFP, please.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
Leslie Carr
Wikimedia Foundation
AS 14907, 43821
http://as14907.peeringdb.com/

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[Michael Maggs]

Yes, I am working on this now, and will put up a proposal to amend policy on 
Commons in the next day or two.  It is of particular relevance to UK Crown 
Copyright works.

Michael


On 30 Dec 2013, at 14:56, Fæ  wrote:

> The URAA is rather more than theoretical. There is more milage  in
> developing a defensive approach for orphan works. Again I think an
> inclusive discussion on Commons is more useful if anyone intends to
> progress this.
> 
> Fae
> On 30 Dec 2013 14:04, "Newyorkbrad"  wrote:
> 
>> I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP
>> I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter
>> although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument
>> otherwise."
>> 
>> One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no
>> rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something
>> along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or,
>> the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or
>> whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for
>> re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be
>> disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should
>> therefore proceed cautiously."
>> 
>> I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to
>> freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims
>> by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the
>> image.
>> 
>> Newyorkbrad


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[Tomasz Ganicz]

2013/12/30 Newyorkbrad :
> I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP
> I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter
> although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument
> otherwise."
>
> One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no
> rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something
> along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or,
> the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or
> whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for
> re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be
> disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should
> therefore proceed cautiously."
>

There are actually many templates saying something similar on Commons
- regarding trademark issues, privacy issues, etc. Even template
US-Gov-PD has such a similar statement - just because it is not always
clear if the US-Gov-PD works are always PD in other jursdictions. The
typical example are pictures of Obama and his family - taken by his
personal photographer who is employed by White House (thus he is
US-Gov employee) - but the pictures are issued on Flickr and several
other places under various licences with personality rights
disclaimers...


-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[Nathan]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> The URAA is rather more than theoretical. There is more milage  in
> developing a defensive approach for orphan works. Again I think an
> inclusive discussion on Commons is more useful if anyone intends to
> progress this.
>
> Fae


I'm finding it interesting to read this discussion, even though I don't
normally scan through discussions on Commons itself. Decentralized
discussion is practically hallowed tradition at this point, so I don't see
the harm in it. I'm sure anyone reading this thread is fully aware that you
believe it should be elsewhere, it is probably unnecessary to remind us
again.

~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[Fæ]

The URAA is rather more than theoretical. There is more milage  in
developing a defensive approach for orphan works. Again I think an
inclusive discussion on Commons is more useful if anyone intends to
progress this.

Fae
On 30 Dec 2013 14:04, "Newyorkbrad"  wrote:

> I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP
> I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter
> although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument
> otherwise."
>
> One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no
> rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something
> along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or,
> the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or
> whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for
> re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be
> disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should
> therefore proceed cautiously."
>
> I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to
> freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims
> by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the
> image.
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
>
> On Monday, December 30, 2013, geni  wrote:
> > On 30 December 2013 11:26, Gerard Meijssen  >wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi Tomasz,
> >>
> >> You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
> >> notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can
> you
> >> appreciate it in this way?
> >>
> >> You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument
> as
> >> well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
> >> served by the continuation of the presence of images.
> >> Thanks,
> >>  GerardM
> >>
> >>
> > No because then reusers also get hit which a bunch of takedown notices
> (or
> > lawsuits) which is decidedly disruptive for them.
> >
> >
> > --
> > geni
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:


You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you
appreciate it in this way?


No, as the only part where I expressed my opinion was the assumption 
that Klaus suggested we only delete files after receiving takedown 
notices because he didn't realize it was in direct contradiction to the 
precautionary principle. The rest of my e-mail is basically a quote of 
that very principle.


I refuse to accept the premise that expressing one's opinion on this 
mailing list is not appreciated only because some people might find it 
strong (or weak, or whatever), as I believe it to be fundamentally flawed.


I also refuse to accept the suggestion that /my/ opinion (whatever it 
might be) is not appreciated "by many" and "seen as disruptive", unless 
you can point me to direct evidence that says so -- preferably to 
previous posts from this thread.



You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as
well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
served by the continuation of the presence of images.


This basically means that we should keep images that violate someone's 
copyright as long as we do not receive a takedown notice from them. I 
cannot possibly stress enough how bad an idea this is.


  Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[Newyorkbrad]

I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP
I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter
although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument
otherwise."

One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no
rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something
along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or,
the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or
whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for
re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be
disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should
therefore proceed cautiously."

I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to
freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims
by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the
image.

Newyorkbrad


On Monday, December 30, 2013, geni  wrote:
> On 30 December 2013 11:26, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi Tomasz,
>>
>> You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
>> notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you
>> appreciate it in this way?
>>
>> You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as
>> well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
>> served by the continuation of the presence of images.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>>
> No because then reusers also get hit which a bunch of takedown notices (or
> lawsuits) which is decidedly disruptive for them.
>
>
> --
> geni
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dells are backdoored

[Tim Starling]

On 30/12/13 23:28, James Salsman wrote:
> Tim was asking about benchmark fairness, so here, read this:
> http://armservers.com/2012/09/11/benchmarks-versus-the-real-world/

Yes, that seems pretty clear. They say that you can replace
underutilised Intel CPUs with ARM CPUs, but agree with Intel's
conclusion that if the CPU is fully utilised, Xeon is better than ARM
in terms of performance per watt.

Of course, there are other ways to deal with underutilised CPUs. For
example, we have 16 memcached servers with 24 cores each, all with
negligible CPU utilisation. They could have, say 4 cores each instead,
"right-sizing the compute infrastructure" in Calxeda's lingo, which
would greatly reduce the power requirements without the cost of
deploying a new system architecture.

Maybe if the workload was such that servers with 1 or 2 Xeon cores
would still be underutilised, ARM would be worth a look. But we don't
appear to have that situation at the moment, at least, not at a
sufficient scale to warrant an investment of staff time. There are
much larger inefficiencies that we don't have time to deal with.

In eqiad, we have about 4700 cores running MediaWiki. Those are fully
utilised except for essential headroom, so they wouldn't be
appropriate for ARM, according to Calxeda's article.

Neither of Calxeda's articles gives a figure for capital cost, so that
a performance per dollar figure can be calculated, whereas Intel does
provide that information. The obvious conclusion is that the cost is
embarrassingly high. Calxeda only tells us that their server is
cheaper and slower than the Intel one, they don't claim to have a
lower capital cost for a given processing throughput.

-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[Fæ]

If anyone wants to suggest useful changes to Commons guidelines, then this
is a discussion to hold on Commons.

I suspect only a handful of us read this list, and only a few of us have
handled or discussed real URAA cases.

Fae
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[Yann Forget]

2013/12/30 geni 

> On 30 December 2013 11:26, Gerard Meijssen  >wrote:
>
> > Hoi Tomasz,
> >
> > You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
> > notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you
> > appreciate it in this way?
> >
> > You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as
> > well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
> > served by the continuation of the presence of images.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> No because then reusers also get hit which a bunch of takedown notices (or
> lawsuits) which is decidedly disruptive for them.
>

This is a falacious argument, because, although these files may not be in
the public domain, nobody really care about URAA.
Except maybe Getty and the like, who can then sell images in the public
domain for ages.

Yann
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dells are backdoored

[James Salsman]

> Jasper has tried to give you honest, useful information based on his
> actual experience and expertise in the matter

It sure seemed like he was trying to imply that ARM servers cost more than
twice what they actually do, and that there is some vague reason that we
are tied to x86 because porting to a different kind of virtualization is
apparently beyond Labs' capabilities.

At least that was more interesting than Oliver's request for more recent
documentation that low power architecture servers use less power, but Tim
was asking about benchmark fairness, so here, read this:
http://armservers.com/2012/09/11/benchmarks-versus-the-real-world/

Moore's law is still a thing, people.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[geni]

On 30 December 2013 11:26, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi Tomasz,
>
> You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
> notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you
> appreciate it in this way?
>
> You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as
> well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
> served by the continuation of the presence of images.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
No because then reusers also get hit which a bunch of takedown notices (or
lawsuits) which is decidedly disruptive for them.


-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi Tomasz,

You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you
appreciate it in this way?

You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as
well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
served by the continuation of the presence of images.
Thanks,
 GerardM


On 30 December 2013 11:31, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:

> Yann Forget wrote:
>
>  Are you suggesting that we can keep URAA affected data until we get a
>> takedown notice?
>>
>
> He is suggesting that, but apparently without realizing that his proposal
> stands in direct contradiction to our precautionary principle (COM:PRP) and
> to the way Commons cares about its re-users.
>
> We cannot, will not and do not plan to keep files where there is
> significant doubt about their freedom, even if we do not get a takedown
> notice from the copyright holders.
>
>   Tomasz
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

Yann Forget wrote:


Are you suggesting that we can keep URAA affected data until we get a
takedown notice?


He is suggesting that, but apparently without realizing that his 
proposal stands in direct contradiction to our precautionary principle 
(COM:PRP) and to the way Commons cares about its re-users.


We cannot, will not and do not plan to keep files where there is 
significant doubt about their freedom, even if we do not get a takedown 
notice from the copyright holders.


  Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

2013/12/30 Samuel Klein 

> On Dec 29, 2013 5:51 PM, "Fæ"  wrote:
> >
> > On 29 Dec 2013 22:43, "Klaus Graf"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it would be the best if _all_ URAA affected files would be kept
> > > until a DMCA take down notice.
> >
> > Your proposal would be more useful made with the Commons community
>
> Both excellent suggestions.
>
> Sam.


Are you suggesting that we can keep URAA affected data until we get a
takedown notice?
That's new AFAIK, and many people will be happy if this is accepted by the
WMF.

Regards,

Yann
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dells are backdoored

[MZMcBride]

Craig Franklin wrote:
>Jasper has tried to give you honest, useful information based on his
>actual experience and expertise in the matter, without drawing too much
>attention to your clear lack of knowledge on this topic.  He deserves
>better than sarcasm and insults from you.

Quite.

"[...] the poster boy of corporate tax abuses, Microsoft OEM bundling
abuses, and NSA collaboration [...]"

That's pretty poetic, though, isn't it? Can we sell that on a coffee mug
or pillow? :-)

James: I can't be the only one who feels that your posts are often a bit,
err, off the wall. Though they certainly add flavor to the list, so it's
difficult to do more than smile and shrug. Perhaps others feel otherwise.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dells are backdoored

[Craig Franklin]

Jasper has tried to give you honest, useful information based on his actual
experience and expertise in the matter, without drawing too much attention
to your clear lack of knowledge on this topic.  He deserves better than
sarcasm and insults from you.

Regards,
Craig


On 30 December 2013 17:53, James Salsman  wrote:

> Jasper, if you can't write an email or pick up the phone asking for a
> hardware quote without supporting the status quo of the Foundation
> datacenter being a monument to the poster boy of corporate tax abuses,
> Microsoft OEM bundling abuses, and NSA collaboration, I really can't
> help you.
>
> If you're interested in what the long term savings can look like, see:
>
> http://www.cnx-software.com/2010/11/16/arm-based-embedded-servers-marvell-armada-xp/
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dells are backdoored

[Oliver Keyes]

Can you provide any evidence that doesn't fail to address software
compatibility or non-power related costs, doesn't feature the word
"assume", isn't based solely on evidence from the manufacturer of the
machine and is less than 3 years old?

I suspect this is a non-starter from the get-go and will be disengaging; I
advise everyone else to do the same.


On 29 December 2013 23:53, James Salsman  wrote:

> Jasper, if you can't write an email or pick up the phone asking for a
> hardware quote without supporting the status quo of the Foundation
> datacenter being a monument to the poster boy of corporate tax abuses,
> Microsoft OEM bundling abuses, and NSA collaboration, I really can't
> help you.
>
> If you're interested in what the long term savings can look like, see:
>
> http://www.cnx-software.com/2010/11/16/arm-based-embedded-servers-marvell-armada-xp/
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dells are backdoored

[FastLizard4]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

[Replies inline with quoted message(s)]

On 12/29/2013 11:53 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> Jasper, if you can't write an email or pick up the phone asking for a
> hardware quote without supporting the status quo of the Foundation
> datacenter being a monument to the poster boy of corporate tax abuses,
> Microsoft OEM bundling abuses, and NSA collaboration, I really can't
> help you.

Woah, I'm going to need some more tinfoil hats!

Seriously, this is starting to become a rather absurd thread.  I feel
that next someone is going to go "The WMF helped NASA fake the moon
landing!".

> If you're interested in what the long term savings can look like, see:
> http://www.cnx-software.com/2010/11/16/arm-based-embedded-servers-marvell-armada-xp/

You aren't a systems administrator, are you?
- --
Sincerely,
Andrew "FastLizard4" Adams


GPG Key ID: 0x221A627DD76E2616
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=KGlG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dells are backdoored

[John Vandenberg]

James,

Jasper asked you to justify your claim of $70 per server vs his $200 per
server.

Does $70 buy the same processing power? What support comes with it? etc.
On Dec 30, 2013 2:53 PM, "James Salsman"  wrote:

> Jasper, if you can't write an email or pick up the phone asking for a
> hardware quote without supporting the status quo of the Foundation
> datacenter being a monument to the poster boy of corporate tax abuses,
> Microsoft OEM bundling abuses, and NSA collaboration, I really can't
> help you.
>
> If you're interested in what the long term savings can look like, see:
>
> http://www.cnx-software.com/2010/11/16/arm-based-embedded-servers-marvell-armada-xp/
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,