-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello DaB!
Could you please give me a short update - the end of 2013 is approaching, what is the current state for TS resp. Labs?
Thanks and Greetings DrTrigon
Hello Dr. Trigon, Am 10.08.2013 11:36, schrieb Dr. Trigon:
Could you please give me a short update - the end of 2013 is approaching, what is the current state for TS resp. Labs?
The question seems to be a little bit to generic.
I can not speak for Labs, but the status of the Toolserver is more or less the same as 6 moths ago – with the exception that there is now a second paid root. The TS is still underpaid and underpowered, but I guess there will be no change of this until the end. Personally I am more busy with my Non-TS-live at the moment.
If you make a more detailed question, maybe I can give you a more detailed answer.
Sincerely, DaB.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello DaB
Thanks for your answer!
If you make a more detailed question, maybe I can give you a more detailed answer.
E.g. is it still planned to discontinue the TS? Having 2 payed admins does not sound like that... - good news?
Thanks and Greetings DrTrigon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi, DrTrigon, hi Nux, hi all,
E.g. is it still planned to discontinue the TS? Having 2 payed admins does not sound like that... - good news?
@DrTrigon: Please look at the Roadmap at [1]. Yes, the Toolserver will be shut down next year. We found amette, the other paid part-time admin, to better share the high workload of DaB. and nosy. This is not related to shutting down the server as DaB. said.
What will happen after June 2014? Specifically - what will happen to any tools and repositories (SVN) that will still be on TS after that date? Will TS cease to exist, will it be inaccessible, just databases will be inaccessible or stale or what?
@Nux: We are still discussing the details of how to proceed after June 2014. But the bottomline *is* that it will be switched off. Everyone will have had more than a year to migrate their tools and delete them from the Toolserver.
Best, Silke
[1] here again: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Tool_Labs/Roadmap_en - -- Silke Meyer Internes IT-Management und Projektmanagement Toolserver
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
If you're asking "is it safe to move tools to Labs", my experience so far say "yes". I can't speak for all unique toolserver features, though.
Cheers, Magnus
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Dr. Trigon dr.trigon@surfeu.ch wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello DaB!
Could you please give me a short update - the end of 2013 is approaching, what is the current state for TS resp. Labs?
Thanks and Greetings DrTrigon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlIGCboACgkQAXWvBxzBrDAKPwCgjsEcGfRtbKaw/eDwTxNhUFfo XgwAoLzV6J+TCdJZ3lvwvkqsMWihQmr+ =1dN+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
I don't know precisely what's happening, my skill & knowledge is barely sufficient to have a vague idea of what I'm doing; I just began to explore Labs .... I can only say thanks to DaB for opportunity and help that I fastly got when needed.
Alex
2013/8/10 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com
If you're asking "is it safe to move tools to Labs", my experience so far say "yes". I can't speak for all unique toolserver features, though.
Cheers, Magnus
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Dr. Trigon dr.trigon@surfeu.ch wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello DaB!
Could you please give me a short update - the end of 2013 is approaching, what is the current state for TS resp. Labs?
Thanks and Greetings DrTrigon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlIGCboACgkQAXWvBxzBrDAKPwCgjsEcGfRtbKaw/eDwTxNhUFfo XgwAoLzV6J+TCdJZ3lvwvkqsMWihQmr+ =1dN+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
-- undefined
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Hi, DrTrigon, hi all!
Here are the essentials:
* Please migrate your tools to Tool Labs until June 30th 2014. (Roadmap: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Tool_Labs/Roadmap_en)
* Yes, there are replicas of the databases and many other features. It is made similar to the login servers on TS.
* Subscribe to labs-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-land/or join #wikimedia-labs on freenode. There are lots of people who will help you.
* Most tools will just run when you copy them to Tool Labs. Just in case: Need help adapting a tool? Ask me and I'll do what I can to get you help, e.g. from my colleague Johannes Kroll.
* If you figure out things that aren't documented, please help others by writing it down, on-wiki (link below) or on labs-l.
* Read this list for updates.
* Some links: ** Tool Labs start page: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nova_Resource:Tools ** Tool Labs documentation: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nova_Resource:Tools/Help (Documentation is ongoing, your help is appreciated!)
Any more specific questions? Please ask! :) Greetings from Wikimania, Silke
2013/8/11 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com
I don't know precisely what's happening, my skill & knowledge is barely sufficient to have a vague idea of what I'm doing; I just began to explore Labs .... I can only say thanks to DaB for opportunity and help that I fastly got when needed.
Alex
2013/8/10 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com
If you're asking "is it safe to move tools to Labs", my experience so far say "yes". I can't speak for all unique toolserver features, though.
Cheers, Magnus
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Dr. Trigon dr.trigon@surfeu.ch wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello DaB!
Could you please give me a short update - the end of 2013 is approaching, what is the current state for TS resp. Labs?
Thanks and Greetings DrTrigon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlIGCboACgkQAXWvBxzBrDAKPwCgjsEcGfRtbKaw/eDwTxNhUFfo XgwAoLzV6J+TCdJZ3lvwvkqsMWihQmr+ =1dN+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
-- undefined
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Silke Meyer (2013-08-11 08:36):
Hi, DrTrigon, hi all!
Here are the essentials:
- Please migrate your tools to Tool Labs until June 30th 2014.
(Roadmap: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Tool_Labs/Roadmap_en) [...]
Two questions:
1. What will happen after June 2014? Specifically - what will happen to any tools and repositories (SVN) that will still be on TS after that date? Will TS cease to exist, will it be inaccessible, just databases will be inaccessible or stale or what? 2. When will users from TS be able to fully use GIT? I'm asking because this page https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Git gives some information on migration process, but also mentions that Push access is not available. Which is kind of strange because, as I understand, I would be creating my own repository. I'm actually hoping this page just wasn't updated ;-).
Regards, Nux.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Maciej Jaros egil@wp.pl wrote:
When will users from TS be able to fully use GIT? I'm asking because this
page gives some information on migration process, but also mentions that Push access is not available. Which is kind of strange because, as I understand, I would be creating my own repository. I'm actually hoping this page just wasn't updated ;-).
Anyone can use the Wikimedia Git setup right now! In regards to the push restrictions, That is so it is always visible in Gerrit (Makes tracking changes way easier), You can be given rights to self merge your own changes in your specific repos. And when requesting your repo, You can request push rights if desired.
Hi DrTrigon,
Op 10-8-2013 11:36, Dr. Trigon schreef:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello DaB!
Could you please give me a short update - the end of 2013 is approaching, what is the current state for TS resp. Labs?
If you don't care about losing your (nfs) file system every once in a while and having very slow databases, you can probably start moving stuff to toollabs. I'm waiting for these bugs to be fixed. It's been more than 3 months now and no clear estimate when it will be fixed.
Maarten
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nlwrote:
Hi DrTrigon,
Op 10-8-2013 11:36, Dr. Trigon schreef:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello DaB!
Could you please give me a short update - the end of 2013 is approaching, what is the current state for TS resp. Labs?
If you don't care about losing your (nfs) file system every once in a while and having very slow databases, you can probably start moving stuff to toollabs. I'm waiting for these bugs to be fixed. It's been more than 3 months now and no clear estimate when it will be fixed.
I don't think that's a fair representation. Despite some teething problems, Labs has been at least (probably more) reliable than the toolserver in the time I've been there. I have ported 25 tools to Labs now, including some heavy-duty ones, and they all seem to work fine.
Yes, there is the occasional bug (imagelinks table on cawiki is not working at the moment; roots are en route from Wikimania;-) but I don't see the traditional toolserver slowness, and Labs doesn't occasionally vanish behind 504 errors for hours at a time either.
I apparently have failed to notice the above mentioned slow databases! On 13 Aug 2013 10:14, "Maarten Dammers" maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
Hi DrTrigon,
Op 10-8-2013 11:36, Dr. Trigon schreef:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello DaB!
Could you please give me a short update - the end of 2013 is approaching, what is the current state for TS resp. Labs?
If you don't care about losing your (nfs) file system every once in a while and having very slow databases, you can probably start moving stuff to toollabs. I'm waiting for these bugs to be fixed. It's been more than 3 months now and no clear estimate when it will be fixed.
Maarten
______________________________**_________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgToolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org ) https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/toolserver-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/** view/Mailing_list_etiquettehttps://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
If you're asking "is it safe to move tools to Labs", my experience so far say "yes". I can't speak for all unique toolserver features, though.Cheers,Magnus
If you don't care about losing your (nfs) file system every once in a while and having very slow databases, you can probably start moving stuff to toollabs. I'm waiting for these bugs to be fixed. It's been more than 3 months now and no clear estimate when it will be fixed.
Yes that was also my experience - I started using Labs under the bots project and it was not that reliable than TS, e.g. no backups of the file system and stuff like that - hope this has changed with the tools project now.
- Most tools will just run when you copy them to Tool Labs. Just
in case: Need help adapting a tool? Ask me and I'll do what I can to
get > you help, e.g. from my colleague Johannes Kroll.
E.g. what about E-Mail? Do I have the possibility to forward mail addresses like e.g. drtrigonbot@tools.wmflabs.org into a file?
Greetings DrTrigon
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Dr. Trigon dr.trigon@surfeu.ch wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
If you're asking "is it safe to move tools to Labs", my experience so far say "yes". I can't speak for all unique toolserver features, though.Cheers,Magnus
If you don't care about losing your (nfs) file system every once in a while and having very slow databases, you can probably start moving stuff to toollabs. I'm waiting for these bugs to be fixed. It's been more than 3 months now and no clear estimate when it will be fixed.
Yes that was also my experience - I started using Labs under the bots project and it was not that reliable than TS, e.g. no backups of the file system and stuff like that - hope this has changed with the tools project now.
You're in for a world of difference. If you haven't switched over, you should try now.
- Most tools will just run when you copy them to Tool Labs. Just
in case: Need help adapting a tool? Ask me and I'll do what I can to
get > you help, e.g. from my colleague Johannes Kroll.
E.g. what about E-Mail? Do I have the possibility to forward mail addresses like e.g. drtrigonbot@tools.wmflabs.org into a file?
This isn't available yet, but we hope to have this worked out soon. It's waiting on legal.
- Ryan
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Ryan Lane rlane@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Most tools will just run when you copy them to Tool Labs. Just
in case: Need help adapting a tool? Ask me and I'll do what I can to
get > you help, e.g. from my colleague Johannes Kroll.
E.g. what about E-Mail? Do I have the possibility to forward mail addresses like e.g. drtrigonbot@tools.wmflabs.org into a file?
This isn't available yet, but we hope to have this worked out soon. It's waiting on legal.
Yes, this is my fault- apologies for the delay. I will address it when I get back from the CC Summit I'm attending right now.
Luis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
@DaB+Silke: Thanks for your infos!!
@Ryan: Of course I am trying labs already since quite some time now... ;) But you know there are some issues... (1) is the mail thing - which should be solved soon (2) is what to do with tools that are non-free or use non-free libraries? What e.g. when the tool developer got permission to use a library and it is open source - but the owner does not want to make it free? Or the license(s) labs wants to enforce?
Greetings
On 20.08.2013 08:31, Ryan Lane wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Dr. Trigon <dr.trigon@surfeu.ch mailto:dr.trigon@surfeu.ch> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
If you're asking "is it safe to move tools to Labs", my experience so far say "yes". I can't speak for all unique toolserver features, though.Cheers,Magnus
If you don't care about losing your (nfs) file system every once in a while and having very slow databases, you can probably start moving stuff to toollabs. I'm waiting for these bugs to be fixed. It's been more than 3 months now and no clear estimate when it will be fixed.
Yes that was also my experience - I started using Labs under the bots project and it was not that reliable than TS, e.g. no backups of the file system and stuff like that - hope this has changed with the tools project now.
You're in for a world of difference. If you haven't switched over, you should try now.
- Most tools will just run when you copy them to Tool Labs. Just
in case: Need help adapting a tool? Ask me and I'll do what I can to
get > you help, e.g. from my colleague Johannes Kroll.
E.g. what about E-Mail? Do I have the possibility to forward mail addresses like e.g. drtrigonbot@tools.wmflabs.org mailto:drtrigonbot@tools.wmflabs.org into a file?
This isn't available yet, but we hope to have this worked out soon. It's waiting on legal.
- Ryan
_______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Dr. Trigon dr.trigon@surfeu.ch wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
@DaB+Silke: Thanks for your infos!!
@Ryan: Of course I am trying labs already since quite some time now... ;) But you know there are some issues... (1) is the mail thing - which should be solved soon (2) is what to do with tools that are non-free or use non-free libraries? What e.g. when the tool developer got permission to use a library and it is open source - but the owner does not want to make it free? Or the license(s) labs wants to enforce?
If it isn't free, then it isn't open source. All we require is a valid OSI license. If it doesn't fit that license we either need to grant an exception (which isn't likely), or the tool author needs to use a different library.
The projects depend on the tools. If a tool is abandoned then we need to be able to take over the tool, which includes its source. If the tool is using something proprietary then it makes taking it over difficult or impossible.
Here's my stance: if a tool is using something proprietary, we can't count on that tool and it doesn't belong on Labs. The tool author either needs to switch to an open source library or move the tool to their own infrastructure.
- Ryan
Hello, Am 28.08.2013 21:18, schrieb Ryan Lane:
If it isn't free, then it isn't open source.
sorry, that’s wrong. Software can be free but not open-source, it can be open-source but not free, it can be free and open-source, and can be non-free and closed source.
If labs only accept stuff that is free AND open source then this is ok, it just narrows the number of possible tools.
@Dr. trigon: To answer you question what will happen to these tools: It is easy, they will die with the toolserver. WMDE and WMF destroy them together.
Sincerely, DaB.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:12 AM, DaB. ts@dabpunkt.eu wrote:
Hello, Am 28.08.2013 21:18, schrieb Ryan Lane:
If it isn't free, then it isn't open source.
sorry, that’s wrong. Software can be free but not open-source, it can be open-source but not free, it can be free and open-source, and can be non-free and closed source.
If labs only accept stuff that is free AND open source then this is ok, it just narrows the number of possible tools.
Please read: http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
@Dr. trigon: To answer you question what will happen to these tools: It is easy, they will die with the toolserver. WMDE and WMF destroy them together.
Or people are free to move them to infrastructure that isn't funded by the donations to a movement that has Open Content as one of the five pillars < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_free_content%3E. The tools and bots that keep this content alive and free are in my opinion an extension of that pillar.
I'm more than happy to recommend a number of cloud services and am more than willing to give advice on how to configure and run tools and bots from those services. It's even possible to reuse the work we're doing in the tools project, or in the Wikimedia infrastructure via our puppet repository since our infrastructure is Open Source.
- Ryan
Hello, Am 29.08.2013 02:24, schrieb Ryan Lane:
Please read: http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
let me quote the German Wikipedia, which is a lot clearer in this point as the English Wikipedia
Open Source [oʊpən ˈsɔːɹs] (engl., US), [əʊpən ˈsɔːs] (brit.) und quelloffen nennt man Software, deren Lizenzbestimmungen in Bezug auf die Weitergabe der Software besagen, dass der Quelltext öffentlich zugänglich ist und – je nach entsprechender Lizenz – frei kopiert, modifiziert und verändert wie unverändert weiterverbreitet werden darf.
As you can see it says clearly that OpenSource means ONLY that you can look into the source – only the license can permit to copy/modify/distribute whatever, A common example for a non-free open-source software is PGP, where you can look into the source but has to buy it to use it.
@Dr. trigon: To answer you question what will happen to these tools: It is easy, they will die with the toolserver. WMDE and WMF destroy them together.
Or people are free to move them to infrastructure that isn't funded by the donations to a movement that has Open Content as one of the five pillars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_free_content. The tools and bots that keep this content alive and free are in my opinion an extension of that pillar.
The goal of Wikipedia is to create, store and provide free knowledge. How we do this doesn’t matter. Most Wikipedians for example use Windows as OS, nearly all pictures are taken with commercial cameras (with unfree firmware), images are modified with Photoshop and videos are cut with Adobe. And as long as the result is free, that doesn’t matter. And a word of the goals of donators: They donate for Wikipedia. Not for the WMF, the WMDE, Labs, Toolserver, Wikidata or free software. If I remove a single associate of WMF or WMDE it would save more money than removing the TS BTW.
I'm more than happy to recommend a number of cloud services and am more than willing to give advice on how to configure and run tools and bots from those services. It's even possible to reuse the work we're doing in the tools project, or in the Wikimedia infrastructure via our puppet repository since our infrastructure is Open Source.
Very nice idea – how I get the mysql-replication-stream? I got several offers of donation if the Toolserver would continue; the only problem is the replication-data. But because the data is open-source, it shouldn’t be a problem than, should it?
- Ryan
Sincerely, DaB.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:36 AM, DaB. ts@dabpunkt.eu wrote:
Hello, Am 29.08.2013 02:24, schrieb Ryan Lane:
Please read: http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
let me quote the German Wikipedia, which is a lot clearer in this point as the English Wikipedia
Open Source [oʊpən ˈsɔːɹs] (engl., US), [əʊpən ˈsɔːs] (brit.) und quelloffen nennt man Software, deren Lizenzbestimmungen in Bezug auf die Weitergabe der Software besagen, dass der Quelltext öffentlich zugänglich ist und – je nach entsprechender Lizenz – frei kopiert, modifiziert und verändert wie unverändert weiterverbreitet werden darf.
As you can see it says clearly that OpenSource means ONLY that you can look into the source – only the license can permit to copy/modify/distribute whatever, A common example for a non-free open-source software is PGP, where you can look into the source but has to buy it to use it.
The term was coined by the folks from the OSI. See their opinion on open source vs free software: http://opensource.org/faq#free-software
Just because the term is often misused to also cover software that is not free and has the source available doesn't mean it's a correct use of the term.
@Dr. trigon: To answer you question what will happen to these tools: It is easy, they will die with the toolserver. WMDE and WMF destroy them together.
Or people are free to move them to infrastructure that isn't funded by the donations to a movement that has Open Content as one of the five pillars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_free_content. The tools and bots that keep this content alive and free are in my opinion an extension of that pillar.
The goal of Wikipedia is to create, store and provide free knowledge. How we do this doesn’t matter. Most Wikipedians for example use Windows as OS, nearly all pictures are taken with commercial cameras (with unfree firmware), images are modified with Photoshop and videos are cut with Adobe. And as long as the result is free, that doesn’t matter. And a word of the goals of donators: They donate for Wikipedia. Not for the WMF, the WMDE, Labs, Toolserver, Wikidata or free software. If I remove a single associate of WMF or WMDE it would save more money than removing the TS BTW.
Tools and bots are depended on by the movement to properly run. They're an extension of the infrastructure. The projects should be forkable and that includes the tools and bots that keep it running.
You're arguing to keep parts of the infrastructure closed source. To what end? How many tools are currently using closed source? How hard would it be to modify them to use open source alternatives? What happens to these tools if they are abandoned? How does this actively benefit the movement?
I'm more than happy to recommend a number of cloud services and am more than willing to give advice on how to configure and run tools and bots from those services. It's even possible to reuse the work we're doing in the tools project, or in the Wikimedia infrastructure via our puppet repository since our infrastructure is Open Source.
Very nice idea – how I get the mysql-replication-stream? I got several offers of donation if the Toolserver would continue; the only problem is the replication-data. But because the data is open-source, it shouldn’t be a problem than, should it?
Assuming you found a non-profit, host your infrastructure somewhere that doesn't cause legal issues and every person that has access to the data stream signs an NDA it's likely doable. Of course, what you're proposing is to fork the community and to explicitly split the tool/bot authors from the software developers and operations engineers. You're also doubling resources and used funds. Aren't we supposed to be a collaborative community? Why can't we work together on this?
I don't understand your antagonism. The new environment that's being provided is an infrastructure for building infrastructures and tools is a fork of TS that runs inside of it. It scales horizontally, is well funded, its underlying infrastructure and the database replication is maintained by the foundation's operations team at a production support level, it's completely open source and forkable and it allows and encourages volunteer roots (which could include yourself). We're not killing TS, we're simply providing a new home for it. You're fighting against something that is providing everything you've been asking for and more.
- Ryan
Am 29.08.2013 21:09, schrieb Ryan Lane:
Tools and bots are depended on by the movement to properly run. They're an extension of the infrastructure. The projects should be forkable and that includes the tools and bots that keep it running.
You're arguing to keep parts of the infrastructure closed source. To what end? How many tools are currently using closed source?
For example all my bots MerlBot, MerlLinkBot and MerlIwBot combining about 80 different tools developed in the past 6 years.
How hard would it be to modify them to use open source alternatives?
I am estimating about 150-200 hours of work. I also have to solve the problem that i know the source code of the used free but closed source libary. So according the OTI i am not allowed to write an open source replacement. The current agreed solution is that sb. from WMDE has to rewrite some parts. I am currently thinking about how to minimize this paid work.
What happens to these tools if they are abandoned?
All tools could be kept running by sb. else. The logic is open source and my framework is based on libaries which can be used for free by everybody.
How does this actively benefit the movement?
I could move my toolserver tools to tool labs immediately. Because of the open source requirement i hope that i have rewritten my tools with the help of WMDE in about 6-10 month. That's a boring and usless additional work i have to do in my free time. Instead i would prefer to write new tools or extend my existing tools because this causes much more fun for myself.
Merlissimo
Hi,
Can you elaborate?
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Merlissimo merl@toolserver.org wrote:
Am 29.08.2013 21:09, schrieb Ryan Lane:
Tools and bots are depended on by the movement to properly run. They're an extension of the infrastructure. The projects should be forkable and that includes the tools and bots that keep it running.
You're arguing to keep parts of the infrastructure closed source. To what end? How many tools are currently using closed source?
For example all my bots MerlBot, MerlLinkBot and MerlIwBot combining about 80 different tools developed in the past 6 years.
What makes these closed? Whose copyrights are the limiting factor here? (links to the pages for those things if they exist would be great. e.g. libraries)
How hard would it be to modify them to use open source alternatives?
I am estimating about 150-200 hours of work. I also have to solve the problem that i know the source code of the used free but closed source libary. So according the OTI i am not allowed to write an open source replacement. The current agreed solution is that sb. from WMDE has to rewrite some parts. I am currently thinking about how to minimize this paid work.
What's OTI?
Please don't use free to mean "no cost" on this thread. In fact, it would be good to avoid "free" entirely. For "free software" use libre and for "free as in beer, no cost to use" use gratis.
-Jeremy
I just don't get this discussion. We've been singing the same song for years now: "Tools should be opensource and freely licensed to make sure they are forkable, independent of single owners, and thus durable" Now people are suddenly complaining when opensource is enforced that their closed source tools will die?! Well, D'uh!
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
Hi,
Can you elaborate?
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Merlissimo merl@toolserver.org wrote:
Am 29.08.2013 21:09, schrieb Ryan Lane:
Tools and bots are depended on by the movement to properly run. They're an extension of the infrastructure. The projects should be forkable and that includes the tools and bots that keep it running.
You're arguing to keep parts of the infrastructure closed source. To what end? How many tools are currently using closed source?
For example all my bots MerlBot, MerlLinkBot and MerlIwBot combining about 80 different tools developed in the past 6 years.
What makes these closed? Whose copyrights are the limiting factor here? (links to the pages for those things if they exist would be great. e.g. libraries)
How hard would it be to modify them to use open source alternatives?
I am estimating about 150-200 hours of work. I also have to solve the problem that i know the source code of the used free but closed source libary. So according the OTI i am not allowed to write an open source replacement. The current agreed solution is that sb. from WMDE has to rewrite some parts. I am currently thinking about how to minimize this paid work.
What's OTI?
Please don't use free to mean "no cost" on this thread. In fact, it would be good to avoid "free" entirely. For "free software" use libre and for "free as in beer, no cost to use" use gratis.
-Jeremy
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Hello, Am 29.08.2013 23:21, schrieb Daniel Schwen:
We've been singing the same song
I guess the song is named "Better a closed tool or none tool?". What some guys here forget: Some of us do programming not for fun or as a hobby, but as a job. And these are REALLY good. Merlissimo is one of these, he is a professional programmer, he does it for live. Some of his tools need to filter huge amounts of data, which can be hard work if you plan to do it fast. Knowledge in this field of programming is worth money – lots of it. Merlissimo is allowed to use some of these algorithms and/or liberies in his tools (which is VERY kind). You can not just exchange these parts of a program in an evening session, it can take months or years of research. That’s the reason it can sometimes be a good idea to allow non-open/non-free-tools. Because there is no open/free/gratis/libre alternative that is as good.
Sincerely, DaB.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Merlissimo merl@toolserver.org wrote:
Because of the open source requirement i hope that i have rewritten my tools with the help of WMDE in about 6-10 month.
That's great, I'm happy to hear that WMDE is helping with this.
That's a boring and usless additional work
Boring it may be, useless it is not. Wikimedia is founded on free software / open source principles, for many good reasons, some of which have already been given in this thread. If the policy is motivating the elimination of a proprietary dependency for tools that are important and valuable to our projects, that means the policy is having its intended effect. In other words, your example underscores precisely why treating this kind of policy as non-negotiable is important, and why we will continue to do so.
Non-free licenses of various kinds ("use it for free", "use it for non-profit purposes", "you can inspect the code") may be tempting, but tend to cause problems in the long run -- due to changes of terms by the original developer, lack of compatibility with other licenses, lack of adaptability of the code, problems distributing the code in open source contexts, and so on and so forth.
On the upside, when open source projects eliminate proprietary dependencies, this is often the source of innovation and positive change that benefits more than just the project in question. The story of the Linux dependency on BitKeeper ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper ) is a good example of that.
Erik
Am 30.08.2013 00:08, schrieb Erik Moeller:
lack of compatibility with other licenses
good luck with using GPL-code in a BSD-project, or CC-text in GFDL-document. Mixing licenses are problematic most times, no matter if open-source-ones or proprietary ones.
And Wikimedia was not founded ON free-software, but WITH free-software – because it was the cheapest solution. Or does somebody think we hadn’t use MySQL if it would have been only gratis and not open-source?
And bitkeeper is very good example: Was the Linux-kernel unfreeer than today? No it was not. It doesn’t matter what tools you use to create free content. „Entscheidend ist, was hinten raus kommt.“.
(A funny fact is that Merlissimo and I use Thunderbird on Linux (free software on a free OS), while Ryan and Erik use Google mail (a gratis and non-open-source web-service)…).
Good night, DaB.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:44 AM, DaB. ts@dabpunkt.eu wrote:
Am 30.08.2013 00:08, schrieb Erik Moeller:
lack of compatibility with other licenses
good luck with using GPL-code in a BSD-project, or CC-text in GFDL-document. Mixing licenses are problematic most times, no matter if open-source-ones or proprietary ones.
And Wikimedia was not founded ON free-software, but WITH free-software – because it was the cheapest solution. Or does somebody think we hadn’t use MySQL if it would have been only gratis and not open-source?
And bitkeeper is very good example: Was the Linux-kernel unfreeer than today? No it was not. It doesn’t matter what tools you use to create free content. „Entscheidend ist, was hinten raus kommt.“.
(A funny fact is that Merlissimo and I use Thunderbird on Linux (free software on a free OS), while Ryan and Erik use Google mail (a gratis and non-open-source web-service)…).
Indeed. I'm using OS X on a Macbook, too. That said, all code, blog posts, presentations and documentation that I write are open source and open content. My laptop and email aren't tools that anyone but myself depends on. I could replace them with anything or they could just disappear and the movement would keep going. No one needs to fork my personal tools.
If there's a crucial bot or tool that uses a proprietary license and the benefactor decides to revoke its license, what do we do?
My feeling is that everything supported financially by the movement that is necessary for it to operate (which includes tools and bots that users depend on) should be open source so that it can be forked, just like the content and the infrastructure.
- Ryan
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Ryan Lane rlane@wikimedia.org wrote:
If there's a crucial bot or tool that uses a proprietary license and the benefactor decides to revoke its license, what do we do?
I don't think licenses usually work that way.
If I share some code under an open source license, I can't later decide to revoke it.
Similarly, if I share some application or library under a freeware license (gratis, but not open source), I think I can't later decide to just revoke it (unless the original license terms clearly stated that I can do that, or unless it was a time-limited license to begin with). I can decide to put later versions of the software under different terms but that's all I can do.
Petr Onderka [[en:User:Svick]]
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Petr Onderka gsvick@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Ryan Lane rlane@wikimedia.org wrote:
If there's a crucial bot or tool that uses a proprietary license and the benefactor decides to revoke its license, what do we do?
I don't think licenses usually work that way.
If I share some code under an open source license, I can't later decide to revoke it.
Similarly, if I share some application or library under a freeware license (gratis, but not open source), I think I can't later decide to just revoke it (unless the original license terms clearly stated that I can do that, or unless it was a time-limited license to begin with).
Almost all software licenses fall into that "unless".
The conditions under which they are revocable vary from license, and the variations are more or less problematic when you're trying to build a long-term, stable, sustainable project. But they're definitely almost all revocable. If they aren't revocable, they probably weren't written in consultation with a lawyer, and so they probably have other problems - failure to grant all the rights you actually need to run or modify the software being common examples.
Luis
Petr Onderka [[en:User:Svick]]
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
Hi!
I think that everybody understands that with the migration we ask you volunteers a lot, especially if your tools can't just move as they are: You have been doing this extra work as a hobby for *years* which I have a lot of respect and admiration for.
Still, I am reluctant to repeat discussions we had before because the situation hasn't changed: OSI-approved licenses only. I take the wording "exceptions are possible but unlikely" as "no exceptions" until I hear of one, ok? ;)
For non-libre projects I would like to come back to what Ryan wrote:
Or people are free to move them to infrastructure that isn't funded by the donations to a movement that has Open Content as one of the five pillars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_free_content. The tools and bots that keep this content alive and free are in my opinion an extension of that pillar.
I'm more than happy to recommend a number of cloud services and am more than willing to give advice on how to configure and run tools and bots from those services. It's even possible to reuse the work we're doing in the tools project, or in the Wikimedia infrastructure via our puppet repository since our infrastructure is Open Source.
Ryan, Luis, could you write a bit more about whether it would be ok (technically and legally) to run database queries in Tool Labs and send them to an external server where a proprietary tool runs? Is that a no go? An exception? Is it totally fine?
Concerning the support offer: As we (as in WMDE) announced to accept support requests for migration until September 30th 2013, I take it there is not that much need of it: So far, my colleague Johannes is in touch with two projects only (Merlissimo among them). If I am wrong, maintainers, please contact me in the weeks to come!
Cheers, Silke
Hello Ryan, Am 30.08.2013 01:57, schrieb Ryan Lane:
My feeling is that everything supported financially by the movement that is necessary for it to operate (which includes tools and bots that users depend on) should be open source so that it can be forked, just like the content and the infrastructure.
You and Eric might get paid by the movement, but I and most tool-authors are not. We are not "supported financially", we do it for free. Now to say "But we provide free infrastructure so you can run your stuff" is to look from the wrong side. WE offer tools that just need a place to run, the valuable part is done by US. There were Tools for Wikipedia before there was a Toolserver (even before there was a WMDE or WMF), the Toolserver was just a offer of help. That’s one of the differences between the TS and Labs: You demand things and build obstacles, while we offer something.
Sincerely, DaB.
Hello Ryan, Am 29.08.2013 21:09, schrieb Ryan Lane:
You're fighting against something that is providing everything you've been asking for and more.
just a notice here: The Toolserver IS everything I asked for. It’s only problem is that it is underfunded. Otherwise it is great. It has a living community, people use the offer to host tools and other people use these tools. Most people are friendly, the Toolserver is accepted by the Wikipedia-Communities (much more than WMDE or WMF), people think that the Toolserver is a good goal for donations, users and tool-users were most times very understanding if something didn’t work at first try or never at all, and WMDE was wise enough to not interfere much.
The Toolserver developed MUCH better than I or anyone else predicted at the start, it is the most successful project WMDE ever started.
At least for me "and more" is not possible.
Sincerely, DaB.
Just spotted this (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/toolserver-l/2013-August/006260.html ):
----
I'm more than happy to recommend a number of cloud services and am more than willing to give advice on how to configure and run tools and bots from those services. It's even possible to reuse the work we're doing in the tools project, or in the Wikimedia infrastructure via our puppet repository since our infrastructure is Open Source.
Very nice idea – how I get the mysql-replication-stream? I got several offers of donation if the Toolserver would continue; the only problem is the replication-data. But because the data is open-source, it shouldn’t be a problem than, should it?
Assuming you found a non-profit, host your infrastructure somewhere that doesn't cause legal issues and every person that has access to the data stream signs an NDA it's likely doable.
----
Can WMF please confirm that this is the case and it wasn't a boutade? If yes, could you indicate a single point of contact interested parties can negotiate such an arrangement with? (See also the first unanswered question by Sj at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_Toolserver#September_2012.)
Nemo
Ryan Lane rlane@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
I'm more than happy to recommend a number of cloud services and am more than willing to give advice on how to configure and run tools and bots from those services. It's even possible to reuse the work we're doing in the tools project, or in the Wikimedia infrastructure via our puppet repository since our infrastructure is Open Source.
Very nice idea – how I get the mysql-replication-stream? I got several offers of donation if the Toolserver would continue; the only problem is the replication-data. But because the data is open-source, it shouldn’t be a problem than, should it?
Assuming you found a non-profit, host your infrastructure somewhere that doesn't cause legal issues and every person that has access to the data stream signs an NDA it's likely doable. [...]
The NDA isn't necessary. According to https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tool_Labs/Database_plan, the data set at the LabsDB stage is free of non-public data (modulo MariaDB accounts information which should probably not go off-site even with an NDA :-)).
So we could (and IMHO should) provide DB dumps/bin logs at dumps.wikimedia.org or somewhere similar to anyone who can download them.
Tim
On 17/09/13 00:11, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
Ryan Lanerlane@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
I'm more than happy to recommend a number of cloud services and am more than willing to give advice on how to configure and run tools and bots from those services. It's even possible to reuse the work we're doing in the tools project, or in the Wikimedia infrastructure via our puppet repository since our infrastructure is Open Source.
Very nice idea – how I get the mysql-replication-stream? I got several offers of donation if the Toolserver would continue; the only problem is the replication-data. But because the data is open-source, it shouldn’t be a problem than, should it?
Assuming you found a non-profit, host your infrastructure somewhere that doesn't cause legal issues and every person that has access to the data stream signs an NDA it's likely doable. [...]
The NDA isn't necessary. According to https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tool_Labs/Database_plan, the data set at the LabsDB stage is free of non-public data (modulo MariaDB accounts information which should probably not go off-site even with an NDA :-)).
So we could (and IMHO should) provide DB dumps/bin logs at dumps.wikimedia.org or somewhere similar to anyone who can download them.
Tim
labs db server do contain the non-public data. It's just not viewable. So there aren't bin logs for just the non-public data. You *could* make a dump of the database (probably creating a new tool, as mysqldump would simply dump the view definition)... assuming you that in doing that you don't kill labs filesystem. ;)
On Sep 16, 2013 7:06 PM, "Platonides" platonides@gmail.com wrote:
labs db server do contain the non-public data. It's just not viewable. So
there aren't bin logs for just the non-public data.
You *could* make a dump of the database (probably creating a new tool, as
mysqldump would simply dump the view definition)... assuming you that in doing that you don't kill labs filesystem. ;)
I think maybe percona-toolkit has relevant tools to sync between 2 versions of the same table (e.g. update a snapshot from yesterday from a current copy) but that probably relies on having primary keys on the tables and not all of our tables have primary keys. (I think external links was the one I was looking at recently which had no primary key)
-Jeremy
On 09/16/2013 04:13 PM, Platonides wrote:
labs db server do contain the non-public data.
Just to clarify things, here, that's a necessary artifact of the way mediawiki works: many of the bits of data that should be made unavailable are done so conditionally on /live data/. It is not possible to replicate the visible contents of the views and have it not break as column values may be nulled or *come back* depending on actions on the projects (supression, deletion, etc).
While some of the more sensitive data never hits the replica (like IP addresses), It is not /possible/ to create a replica without transferring data that can be unsupressed or undeleted -- but might never be.
-- Marc
On 17/09/13 01:22, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 09/16/2013 04:13 PM, Platonides wrote:
labs db server do contain the non-public data.
Just to clarify things, here, that's a necessary artifact of the way mediawiki works: many of the bits of data that should be made unavailable are done so conditionally on /live data/. It is not possible to replicate the visible contents of the views and have it not break as column values may be nulled or *come back* depending on actions on the projects (supression, deletion, etc).
While some of the more sensitive data never hits the replica (like IP addresses), It is not /possible/ to create a replica without transferring data that can be unsupressed or undeleted -- but might never be.
-- Marc
I guess there could be a labs replica with triggers that deleted data at the point it became private, which could then serve as replication master providing public binlogs. The problem which breaks the idea completely are the restores, ie. non-public data coming back (the server would receive ‘show this again’, but it would need a full insert...).
toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org