-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
if a toolserver running Windows were available, would anyone use it? are there people not using the toolserver (or not as much as they'd like) because they are unwilling to learn Unix?
any other comments? (please, avoid comments about why we should/shouldn't use Windows.)
- river.
Well, I think I will.. I'm learning C# at the moment ,and I guess running my C# bot on Windows is too better (than Mono on Linux) Maybe there are some users else want to use Microsoft programming languages to build their bots?
I am sure there are. I tried to run a C# bot on my mac (which is a Unix, so I needed mono), but I couldn't figure it out. If that was confusing on this, it probably isn't much easier for new users on the toolserver.
-Soxred93
On Feb 5, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Osama KM wrote:
Well, I think I will.. I'm learning C# at the moment ,and I guess running my C# bot on Windows is too better (than Mono on Linux) Maybe there are some users else want to use Microsoft programming languages to build their bots? _______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Osama KM:
OK> I'm learning C# at the moment ,and I guess running my C# bot on Windows is OK> too better (than Mono on Linux)
no, this shouldn't make any difference as far as i know. many people run .NET programs under mono with no problems. (that is, after all, one of the main purposes of .NET.)
- river.
Hello,
Am 05.02.2008, 21:08 Uhr, schrieb River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org:
OK> I'm learning C# at the moment ,and I guess running my C# bot on Windows is OK> too better (than Mono on Linux)
no, this shouldn't make any difference as far as i know. many people run .NET programs under mono with no problems. (that is, after all, one of the main purposes of .NET.)
I'm using C# and also Mono some time now (but I'm developing using Visual Studio and only test my programs under Mono) and Mono took a big step forward in the last years. All the things a normal Toolserver user do is really no problem with Mono. The most problems are with user interfaces, windows and so on, but there are a few command line tools that will make problems under Mono. So using C# (which is really a great language!) isn't a reason for Windows. In fact I don't really know a reason for using windows on the toolserver (and i'm personally a loyal Windows user ;)).
Sincerely, Christian Thiele / apper
Even though I have a Toolserver account, I didn't really have much to learn about Unix. In fact, I haven't accessed my account in a couple days, since my bot keeps running continuously. Whenevr I need to log in, I just access the Meta page. Running Windows versus Unix would not make much difference personally, but it might for someone who uses Windows.
-Soxred93
On Feb 5, 2008, at 1:43 PM, River Tarnell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
if a toolserver running Windows were available, would anyone use it? are there people not using the toolserver (or not as much as they'd like) because they are unwilling to learn Unix?
any other comments? (please, avoid comments about why we should/shouldn't use Windows.)
- river.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFHqK5dIXd7fCuc5vIRAkM3AJ9dZuvuX7ptOZCMlg/d/Ri2HVybdwCghhLM Bp3xnEv9sRsIqi6uW4oW6l0= =JrB+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
On 06/02/2008, River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org wrote:
any other comments? (please, avoid comments about why we should/shouldn't use Windows.)
Why?
regards, Brianna
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Brianna Laugher:
BL> On 06/02/2008, River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org wrote:
any other comments? (please, avoid comments about why we should/shouldn't use Windows.)
BL> Why?
because the purpose is not to discuss whether we should do it, but whether doing it would provide an advantage to users. if yes, then we can discuss whether it's possible and if we should do it or not. until then, such discussions are just a waste of time.
- river.
On Feb 5, 2008 10:08 PM, River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org wrote:
because the purpose is not to discuss whether we should do it, but whether doing it would provide an advantage to users. if yes, then we can discuss whether it's possible and if we should do it or not. until then, such discussions are just a waste of time.
Alternatively, you can observe that if we're to conclude it's not acceptable for reasons other than advantage to users, it's a waste of time to ask if it would be an advantage to users. The most time-efficient manner of discussion would seem to be to discuss all concerns in parallel, possibly in different threads to avoid mutual disruption if so desired.
On Feb 5, 2008 10:29 PM, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
Also, don't we have something against running closed source software for this sort of thing? That was always the reason we use MySQL rather than oracle or something else (not that I know enough to say that it was a bad decision) so is a Windows server fitting with that?
That principle is generally observed for the main servers, where practical, but at present it's completely ignored for the toolserver. JIRA, for instance, is most definitely proprietary and closed-source, despite the existence of a large number of perfectly serviceable open-source alternatives, one of which is already used by Wikimedia. I believe the same is true of at least one other program run by the toolserver roots. And, of course, most of the software that users upload is probably not free, which is possibly a different issue and possibly not (I would say not).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Simetrical:
S> That principle is generally observed for the main servers, where S> practical, but at present it's completely ignored for the toolserver.
it's not so much ignored, more that it doesn't exist for us. (i asked the Verein about this in the beginning, and their attitude was the much more reasonable 'use whichever software works best').
- river.
On Feb 5, 2008 1:43 PM, River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
if a toolserver running Windows were available, would anyone use it? are there people not using the toolserver (or not as much as they'd like) because they are unwilling to learn Unix?
any other comments? (please, avoid comments about why we should/shouldn't use Windows.)
- river.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFHqK5dIXd7fCuc5vIRAkM3AJ9dZuvuX7ptOZCMlg/d/Ri2HVybdwCghhLM Bp3xnEv9sRsIqi6uW4oW6l0= =JrB+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
I personally would not. Implementation of Perl on Windows leaves much to be desired, and I'm too lazy to learn a 'real' programming language.
That aside, I don't know how useful a Windows server would be since users wouldn't be able to use any sort of GUI - am I right? For example, this rules AWB out. Is there enough support in Windows to actually work on bots on it, or would the lack of GUI (which is probably the reason windows users don't like the toolserver as it is, its arcane command line) be debilitating?
Also, don't we have something against running closed source software for this sort of thing? That was always the reason we use MySQL rather than oracle or something else (not that I know enough to say that it was a bad decision) so is a Windows server fitting with that?
Oh, and I reserve the right to be totally wrong in all of this, it's 10:30 at night and I need sleep.
Dan Collins wrote:
I personally would not. Implementation of Perl on Windows leaves much to be desired, and I'm too lazy to learn a 'real' programming language.
You wouldn't use a port :P Which APIs (useful for toolserver projects) does Windows provide that UNIX doesn't?
That aside, I don't know how useful a Windows server would be since users wouldn't be able to use any sort of GUI - am I right? For example, this rules AWB out. Is there enough support in Windows to actually work on bots on it, or would the lack of GUI (which is probably the reason windows users don't like the toolserver as it is, its arcane command line) be debilitating?
I think this is the main point. Unix systems have a clear shell, and can easily be forwarded via Internet. OTOH Windows relies too much on graphical interfaces, there're would need to be a graphical login (Remote Desktop, VNC..). Providing a command line shell would be useless to most prospective users, and also for admins as not everything can be configured from command line (although this is slowly changing with new versions).
Also, don't we have something against running closed source software for this sort of thing? That was always the reason we use MySQL rather than oracle or something else (not that I know enough to say that it was a bad decision) so is a Windows server fitting with that?
Not really. Most servers are running Solaris, which is not fully free. The issue of the licenses is also interesting. It would be interesting to run the Win toolserver in ReactOS but alas it's not mature enough.
On Feb 6, 2008 7:32 AM, Platonides platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. Most servers are running Solaris, which is not fully free. The issue of the licenses is also interesting. It would be interesting to run the Win toolserver in ReactOS but alas it's not mature enough.
What do you mean, most servers are running Solaris? The main servers are all running various distributions of Linux, and so is hemlock, at any rate.
Simetrical wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 7:32 AM, Platonides wrote:
Not really. Most servers are running Solaris, which is not fully free. The issue of the licenses is also interesting. It would be interesting to run the Win toolserver in ReactOS but alas it's not mature enough.
What do you mean, most servers are running Solaris? The main servers are all running various distributions of Linux, and so is hemlock, at any rate.
From http://wiki.ts.wikimedia.org/view/Main_Page Zedler and yarrow are running Solaris (...) Vandale runs Solaris (...) Hemlock is running a Debian Linux system. Clematis is running Solaris (...)
4 servers out 5 running Solaris. So i'd say most are running Solaris :P
Maybe you thought i was talking about WMF servers?
I support Windows toolserver. I actually proposed it already pretty long time ago.
Of course, it depends on what will be installed on it, but I guess some SBS package could solve it.
It's not the question of unwilling to learn Unix, but the question of reusability of previous work - if somebody already has something he can can use, he most probably won't want to rewrite it completely in different language.
Eg. I personally have a bunch of stuff written in ASP I could use, as well as standalone scripts in VBS/JS. There are also some useful freeware programs or libraries which could be helpful and I don't know about any Linux alternative to them (not saying it doesn't exist, but simply didn't find it).
Danny B.
------------ Původní zpráva ------------ Od: River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org Předmět: [Toolserver-l] Windows toolserver Datum: 05.2.2008 19:44:25
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
if a toolserver running Windows were available, would anyone use it? are there people not using the toolserver (or not as much as they'd like) because they are unwilling to learn Unix?
any other comments? (please, avoid comments about why we should/shouldn't use Windows.)
- river.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFHqK5dIXd7fCuc5vIRAkM3AJ9dZuvuX7ptOZCMlg/d/Ri2HVybdwCghhLM Bp3xnEv9sRsIqi6uW4oW6l0= =JrB+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Although my total experience with Linux (including the time I've spent with the toolserver) is much less than 100 hours, and I spent at least an hour in Windows environment every day, I found Linux environment easy to learn, at least for the purpose of working with Toolserver. Personally, I have never encountered a situation with the Toolserver which needed it to be running on a Windows operating system. So in my views, Linux is fine and enough.
Hojjat (aka Huji)
Same for me.
-Soxred93
On Feb 6, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Huji wrote:
Although my total experience with Linux (including the time I've spent with the toolserver) is much less than 100 hours, and I spent at least an hour in Windows environment every day, I found Linux environment easy to learn, at least for the purpose of working with Toolserver. Personally, I have never encountered a situation with the Toolserver which needed it to be running on a Windows operating system. So in my views, Linux is fine and enough.
Hojjat (aka Huji) _______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
I don't know how stable a Windows server is, it's may be a clichee that they're often unstable and crash. But I oppose Windows server. Why? The expenditure would be to big although the Unix server run very well (apart from the last problems). - And they cost AFAIK a lot.
best regards, Petar
I am new to this list, so hi to everyone.
Both projects* I plan to work on can be accomplished with GNU R running on Unix.
Greetings Euro
* Quantitative Research of Wikipedias Social Network / production behaviour Confirmation, formatting and graphical presentation of statistical data entered into wikis
On 06.02.2008, at 09:52, Danny B. wrote:
I support Windows toolserver. I actually proposed it already pretty long time ago.
Of course, it depends on what will be installed on it, but I guess some SBS package could solve it.
It's not the question of unwilling to learn Unix, but the question of reusability of previous work - if somebody already has something he can can use, he most probably won't want to rewrite it completely in different language.
Eg. I personally have a bunch of stuff written in ASP I could use, as well as standalone scripts in VBS/JS. There are also some useful freeware programs or libraries which could be helpful and I don't know about any Linux alternative to them (not saying it doesn't exist, but simply didn't find it).
Danny B.
------------ Původní zpráva ------------ Od: River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org Předmět: [Toolserver-l] Windows toolserver Datum: 05.2.2008 19:44:25
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
if a toolserver running Windows were available, would anyone use it? are there people not using the toolserver (or not as much as they'd like) because they are unwilling to learn Unix?
any other comments? (please, avoid comments about why we should/shouldn't use Windows.)
- river.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFHqK5dIXd7fCuc5vIRAkM3AJ9dZuvuX7ptOZCMlg/d/Ri2HVybdwCghhLM Bp3xnEv9sRsIqi6uW4oW6l0= =JrB+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org writes:
any other comments? (please, avoid comments about why we should/shouldn't use Windows.)
There mat be some practical issues with hanging sessions, or if any of the tools are requiring some sort of GUI serverside, sessions that terminate.
My experience is a few years old, but at the time, where I had to use Terminal services at work, we often experienced problems with session handling. Hopefully those problems have been solved since then, but it might be a good idea to find out what kind of stability can be achieved. In my eyes it would be worse to provide an environment that's unstable, than not providing one.
Hi, Personally, I don't need a windows server, quite the reverse. All my scripts are written in TCL or in PHP/MySQL language (plus some softwares like gnuplot...) Richard (Escaladix)
River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org a écrit : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
if a toolserver running Windows were available, would anyone use it? are there people not using the toolserver (or not as much as they'd like) because they are unwilling to learn Unix?
any other comments? (please, avoid comments about why we should/shouldn't use Windows.)
- river.
_______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
--------------------------------- Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
2008/2/11, Richard ROCCA rrocca23@yahoo.fr:
Hi, Personally, I don't need a windows server, quite the reverse. All my scripts are written in TCL or in PHP/MySQL language (plus some softwares like gnuplot...) Richard (Escaladix)
I don't need a windows server either, but I think that it would be useful if only people who are interested in a windows server replied. In my humble opinion, of course, is quite useless to fill this thread with "i don't need a windows server because [...]"
cheers, Davide/Helios
toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org