Am 13.07.11 03:21, schrieb Dave Fisher:
On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Raphael Bircher wrote:
Am 13.07.11 01:47, schrieb Jomar Silva:
On 2011/6/12 19:38 Pedro Giffuni<giffu...@tutopia.com> wrote:
While this is understandable, it is not good enough. We will have to
find an
alternative repository and link to it from Apache's website. This is
something
that can wait though.
Can you please explain the 'not good enough' and also propose an alternative
solution ?
You removed the answare. The fact that only Open Source extension are alowed is
not ideal. Everyone at OOo knows the storry about this topic. The wish to have
only Open Source extensions come from the FSF. This wish was refused by the CC
of OpenOffice.org with good reasons. I don't think, this reasons go away only
because we move to the ASF.
A Extension Repository with only Open Source Extension makes maybe the FSF
happy, but do not cover our need. So this is one more time more a ideological
question.
+1 - We should attempt to have the most complete and agnostic registry of all
extensions and the most open collection of templates possible.
I've asked the contact that I made last night at OSUOSL for two things.
(1) Some statistics about the server.
(2) Contacts at Sun/Oracle who were working on the performance issues - which
involve scale.
With data we have a better idea of what infrastructure is required.
The site has a verry hight number of visitors. I think a CMS like Drupal
is not a good choice for a site like thise. We need same thing self
programmed only for this page. We need not a load of scripts for it.
It's a big difference if you ave a script with mayby 100 Lines code ore
you hav a CMS with thousands Line of code. Even Drupal is fast, it's to
slow for this service.
I'm willing to help there
I think we need to find out from Legal if the ASF actually has an issue with
hosting differently licensed software on a machine that is not on the internet
at *.apache.org, but on *.openoffice.org.
Regards,
Dave
--
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
