On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Bo Peng wrote:
Perfect. So this mean that we abandon sourceforge completely, right?
So far, the plan looks good.
Right, after all the debates, Lars dictates.
Hi Bo,
I think your initiative with SF was great and your work showed that the
web site is portable, which is quite a bit of relief to me. So with the
work you did, I now feel quite safe that we can move the web site to
mostly anwhere. The wiki will be a different issue though :-(
Personally I prefer virtual servers, but maybe I´m a bit of a control
freak... even so, I thought there was a weak consensus for a VM and many
developers just wanting _any_ solution. One advantage with a VM is freedom
to run most anything we like, e.g. in terms of version control systems.
One disadvantage I see with a VM compared to a hosting solution is e.g.
that we have to solve backups and do our own administration.
OTOH, with SF we´d still have to do some kind of backups due to the issue
with the directory persistence/, but we wouldn´nt have to do upgrades. So
there are pros and cons with both solutions as I see it, but more
importantly going going with a VM now doesn´t preclude using SF later on.
Lars´, could you comment on backups of the VM?
As an aside, it´d be excellent if the VM was running a system that
automatically switches the VM to different hardware if the old hardware
fails. That´s probably hoping for a lot, but such system exist and will
probably be more and more common. I´ve even heard of (coming?) systems
that can do switchover of VMs while retaining real-time characteristics.
sincere regards,
Christian
PS. As a general sidenote, I looked at some hosting solutions but I didn´t
find any that sounded really good. Having said that SF is definitely not
bad, but they do have for instance the security issuses.
--
Christian Ridderström Mobile: +46-70 687 39 44
