On Feb 5, 2008 10:08 PM, River Tarnell <river(a)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(a)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).