Would a "Windows toolserver" require an own physical server, or have you planned running it virtual?
On Feb 7, 2008 5:35 PM, Simetrical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2008 10:18 AM, Danny B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've seen many cases of intolerance to minorities (because of race, > > religion, sexual oritentation etc.) and this seems to me it becomes to be > > the same. I wonder what makes Windows programmers worse than Linux guys. > > And what makes Linux guys pontificaly reject the equal rights and chances > > for Windows people. I thought this is community project with equal > > opportunities to contribute to everybody who's interested. Or are we all > > equal but some of us are more equal than others? > > There are those of us who do believe that reliance upon proprietary > software is in fact damaging, contrary to Wikimedia's mission, and > perhaps even wrong. That would indeed make us reject "equal rights" > for Windows users, just as it would make us reject equal rights for > those who don't want to GFDL their Wikipedia contributions. This is > not, however, an issue on the toolservers, because neither those who > own them nor those who run them are sympathetic to that point of view. > Either way, that question is explicitly off-topic here, although I > wouldn't mind debating it with you elsewhere. > > The question is whether getting a Windows server is worth the cost. > So far we have one person who has concretely said he would be > interested in moving his application to a Windows toolserver. That > project is already running on a private Windows server and will > presumably continue to do so even if a Windows toolserver is not > provided (or at least, we were told nothing to the contrary). I'm not > clear, either, on whether that code would run anyway under Mono with > no modifications -- the fifth post in this thread was by River, saying > that Windows vs. Mono "shouldn't make any difference as far as i know" > for running C#/.NET. The base cost is at least $400, for a one-CPU > license -- this allows multicore, by the way, so that's unlikely to be > a big problem. At $6/user, the per-user licensing cost seems likely > to run to at least one or two hundred dollars more per year, unless > it's very unpopular (in which case that's an argument against > bothering in itself). > > So that means at least $500-600/year, if I'm correct in assuming that > the $400 base is also per year. (If it's one-time, that seems like > fairly remarkable pricing, I'm pretty sure lower than a copy of Vista > Home Premium and Office, so I think I'm correct.) It might be higher > if some cost was forgotten or misunderstood, but it's maybe also > possible to get a lower price from some other supplier. If this > figure is correct, I think it's fair to say that to justify the cost, > we would need at least one useful thing that would be run on the > toolserver that we are fairly certain would not be run otherwise. > That's just as a minimum, to justify the expense and the effort. > Preferably you'd think there should be more than one thing. But as > far as I can tell, nobody has yet come up with even one thing, so > based on the response so far, it doesn't seem that there's anything > that's been suggested yet that would justify this. > > Is there any disagreement on the last two paragraphs? > > > _______________________________________________ > Toolserver-l mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l > -- /Carl Fürstenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
