On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 04:19:15 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 08:04:37PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Kieran Kunhya <kier...@obe.tv> > > wrote: > > > > > On 17 July 2015 at 22:00, Michael Niedermayer > > > <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:16:53PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer > > > > wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > On 15 Jul, Michael Niedermayer wrote : > > > >> > > longer awnser, > > > >> > > videolan IIUC would be willing to host some of our services > > > >> > > on their existing server but this would require a "quite a > > > >> > > bit" of work. videolan uses LXC we do not. > > > >> > > > > >> > Indeed, and there is a good reason for that, called security. > > > >> > > > > >> > > also videolan of course would have to agree to everything, > > > >> > > its their server of course ... > > > >> > > > > >> > VideoLAN has very powerfull machines, connected in a correct > > > datacenter, > > > >> > with a contract, that will outlive any single member. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Don't take it bad, but seeing the discussions, and the way > > > >> > you manage your roots and services migration, you don't seem > > > >> > to care that much about being correctly deployed, but to do > > > >> > it fast. > > > >> > > > >> iam not taking it bad but when you are being told your boxes > > > >> could be shutdown without prior notice by the new managment, > > > >> then yes you try to move fast, which is what we did. > > > >> Not because thats a great thing to do but because it was needed > > > > > > > > also speaking of that, id like to take the opertunity to thank > > > > everyone who helped making that quick move to the current > > > > servers possible That is at least alex, arpi, fabrice, beastd, > > > > kieran, reimar, roberto, lou, tim, ubitux and probably more > > > > who i have forgotten to list > > > > > > > > In principle we could stay at these servers but i think its > > > > better if we use the time available now to move things to some > > > > free, higher end servers and hosting and also if possible > > > > (volunteers) move to something like LXC or qemu/kvm in the > > > > process and have services properly seperated > > > > > > > > That would give us better servers, more robust hosting than > > > > what you get with a 50euro/mo box. more security and at less > > > > cost. > > > > > > Sorry but this is a bizzare and short-sighted goal. Whilst I am > > > sure most of the offers mean well it's much better to get help > > > from the community because at least we know who they are, where > > > the data is stored, easily contactable etc. The person offering > > > free hosting could just leave their company and the machine wiped > > > one day. > > > > > > J-B offered that videolan will host ffmpeg. I, for one, would be > > thrilled if that were to happen. I trust videolan a lot. > > so do i, i trust JB, but will JB still be in charge in 5 years? > in 10 years? can we trust whoever will come after JB ? > > I think FFmpeg should stay with a "neutral" provider/hoster. I also trust JB. But I remember the libav fork and some vlc devels/admins during that time. http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2011-January/106458.html i think vlc would be a good host as long as JB is there. -compn _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel