Julie Kemp wrote:
I understand that, Cunc, but wouldn't Bomis having larger, perhaps more redundant (and mirrored) servers work as well?
Yes, and it's worth noting that we are a long long way from this really mattering. Traffic would have to increase by a factor of 10 before I would really start to care at all. I'm happy to throw another couple of servers at the system, if it is justified by traffic levels.
It's very expensive, but isn't that where the advertising comes in?
Well, we're running free software on commodity hardware. I'm happy to supply whatever we need for the visible future. So no money will be necessary from any sources other than me for a long time. It's not _that_ expensive.
I know remote networking is viable, but is it practical? It just doesn't seem to be a sensible solution long-term. Can you imagine having to deal with migrations, etc., every time someone decides to back out? Ugh.
I think it's very impractical and "pie in the sky" from a technical point of view. There's a lot of neat ideas out there -- freenet, etc., but we aren't really a *technical* project, we're an _encyclopedia_ project. So I agree with you completely.
Our great virtue, to date, is that we stick to what we know. Inventing astounding new distributed hosting solutions seems too far off our central mission. We should, of course, utilize the best available stable technology at any given point in time.