On 8/20/15 5:49 AM, Kevin Anderson wrote:
I think it is great that Bitsavers material can be saved in more than one location, whether that be identical mirrors on multiple servers or with material copied into another environment.
I completely disagree. Scott asked to 'mirror bitsavers' That is NOT what he did, and he is the ONLY person who has ever done this after asking for rsync access. Bitsavers looks the way it does for ONE reason, to make it trivial to mirror the hierarchy EXACTLY as it looks and to distribute the workload worldwide. Jay and I greatly appreciate the bandwidth that all of the mirrors provide. It is a dynamic document. Files get updated, some directories are split if they get too big. I have had one instance when I was asked to take down the contents of a directory, which I did. There are some quirks in the taxonomy, but they are that way to minimize the bandwidth impact of a wholesale reorganization on the rsync peers. What he has done is ripped off the content while NEVER agreeing to be one of the mirrors, freezing what he took and attempting to cluelessly make it 'accessable' burying it in something impossible for anyone ELSE to mirror. The files DON'T get fixed when I update them. There is no discussion about 'fixing' what he has done. The damage is already done. I have been torn about talking about this because it is a no-win situation. Pulling his access is pointless, you can just wget it. THAT is why I said he doesn't 'get it', and http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/3881 demonstrated that.
