On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Bertho Stultiens wrote:
[...]
> I got some offers for mirrors, but I am not the one who can decide this
> because I am not the site's webmaster.
Oups, I'm really sorry for that. I meant Doug Ridgway.
[...]
> mirrors. The traffic is not too high though (10..15kb/s sustained and
> between 20..50 http requests per minute).
It's not traffic I'm concerned with. It's
reliability/availability. I'm afraid that downtime might discourage
occasional contributors or that people checking out on Wine just
when the web site or CVS is down would not try again later.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Ove Kaaven wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Francois Gouget wrote:
>
> > I know of a mirror, http://ursula.gmcl.com/ (I don't know if
[...]
> This sounds a bit backwards... ursula.gmcl.com is commit.winehq.com aka
> winehq.com, the master site, maintained by Douglas.
>
> www.winehq.com is winehq.tiepmiep.dk, the mirror site, maintained by
> Bertho, and is mirroring ursula.gmcl.com.
I was talking from the point of view of the DNS servers. For me
'www.winehq.com' is the main site because that's what people type.
'http://ursula.gmcl.com' is another site from which I can get the same
information, so I called it a mirror. From what you say this happens to
be the exact reverse from the way the two sites are maintained.
Why do I see discrepencies between ursula and winehq.com? On
ursula it says 'The latest Wine is 20000109' and on winehq it says 'The
latest Wine is 20000227'. For some time was not getting the latest
wine Weekly News and it may be because my bookmark was pointing to
ursula. By the way, today the latest news on ursula is 2000-9 while
it's 2000-10 on Wine HQ.
[...]
> SourceForge is probably a fine service for new developers, but I doubt an
> established project like Wine would gain from moving there. And I would
> not trust this kind of large third-party site with a project of this
> magnitude, centralization is not necessarily good in my opinion (we all
> know that decentralization is the reason why the Internet and Linux can
> never be destroyed by any large corporation; but SourceForge is owned by a
> single corporation (VA Linux), so Wine would suddenly depend on an
> uncompromised VA Linux to survive, and with Microsoft in the waters, would
> you bet your future on it?)
I really would really not worry about Microsoft or VA Linux
doing bad things. The worse they can do is pull the plug which would
only force us to move our stuff elsewhere. But in any case we would keep
mirrors anyway so this would mostly mean redirecting www.winehq.com to
another machine.
What I'm more worried about with SourceForge is their hardware
capacity. They have put a lot of hardware into it but I've seen
mentionned recently that they have been growing at 15% per week. That's
1433% per year. Their resources may not follow the same path.
In fact we don't have to (and probably should not) move
everything to SourceForge:
- the web site, without the application database and bug list, and the
CVS server are the first candidates for moving to SourceForge because
they are the two most visible components
- we should not move the mailing lists to SourceForge unless we can do
so without requireing that everyone re-register again or change the
address they mail to
- the bug list need not move although it may mean less maintenance work
- the application database need not move either
- SourceForge provides their own CVSWeb so there is no need to move
that (as long as we do a CVSup between sites)
--
Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.multimania.com/fgouget
Linux, WinNT, MS-DOS - also known as the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.