|
Grex > Coop9 > #55: Motion: To allow unregistered reading of all conferences | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 11 new of 367 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 357 of 367:
| 
Apr 29 05:43 UTC 1997 |
In regard to some comments above that I don't understand what others
have been saying: they have expressed themselves clearly enough, and I
do understand. I just diagree.
In my opinion - Grex is much faster now thanit had been for a while
with some slower hardware and less efficient software. I don't find
any serious or access problems now (though we can always wish for a faster
system). Therefore, I don't agree with the criticisms of current operation.
All the speculation (mine included) about the change making the system
slower - or not change it - is really beside the point. The system would have
been fastest if the public had never been admitted. "Reasonable' behavior
is, of course, desirable. We can find out what affect the change will have
on response by implementing the change. If a majority don't like it, we can
de-implement it.
|
janc
|
|
response 358 of 367:
|
Apr 29 12:21 UTC 1997 |
Our original plan had been to upgrade Grex to a 4/460 system. This would have
been a very quick process (replace some cards, no software changes) but it
would have given a much smaller speed increase than the 4/670. When we found
such good deals on the 4/670, we decided to skip a step. This will cost us
much less money in the long run, but it means we have to stay on the old
system a bit longer to get a much bigger speed increase. Doing less frequent
upgrades with bigger improvements means performance is less consistant, but
it also allows us to move to faster machines sooner than we otherwise would
have. CPU-wise, we are currently going to be a bit squeezed until the
upgrade, but I still think it was the best path for Grex.
|
tsty
|
|
response 359 of 367:
|
May 1 05:21 UTC 1997 |
>>re #356 ... i did have some negative thoughts about posting email in toto.
i took out the personal stuff and didn't identify the author, you notice.
it's the content that i considered worth the entry. i've had the
original around for quite a while, and since it the content relates
to this discussion, and since anonymity can be maintained, and since
it was a related thought on topic (by someone else), i posted it.
if the original author should choose to say something, ok. if not,
the thoughts stand as they are.
|
richard
|
|
response 360 of 367:
|
Jul 12 15:33 UTC 1997 |
So..update time...whats the early reviews of unregistered reading? Has
it been a success? A failure? Has anyone used that feature at all?
Or has the world ended as some suggested?
|
mary
|
|
response 361 of 367:
|
Jul 12 21:17 UTC 1997 |
Yes. Depending on your point of view, of course.
|
remmers
|
|
response 362 of 367:
|
Jul 12 23:51 UTC 1997 |
I'd be interested in seeing statistics on the amount of
anonymous reading, and in fact the level of usage of backtalk
in general. I assume that kind of information can be extracted
from the server logs.
|
robh
|
|
response 363 of 367:
|
Jul 13 14:52 UTC 1997 |
The world ended for me, and I feel fine. >8)
|
scg
|
|
response 364 of 367:
|
Jul 13 17:36 UTC 1997 |
Rob, welcome back!
|
orinoco
|
|
response 365 of 367:
|
Jul 14 15:20 UTC 1997 |
It's the end of the world as we know it, It's teh end of the world as we know
it, It's the end of the world as we know it, and robh feels fine...
|
srw
|
|
response 366 of 367:
|
Jul 15 04:34 UTC 1997 |
The server logs are indeed extracted every week, and you can find a
pointer to them on our home page. You can look at the counts on backtalk
hits. The ones with /pw/ in the URL are named. The ones without /pw/ are
anonymous.
|
richard
|
|
response 367 of 367:
|
Jul 15 15:46 UTC 1997 |
yeah but what are the percentages...I dont think the raw numbers
are nbecessary.
|