|
|
| Author |
Message |
jgelinas
|
|
Offline Discussions
| 
Jan 2 21:04 UTC 2010 |
If (when?) Grex goes down again, where should we continue the discussion
of grex's future? We could also use the chosen venue to discuss the
status of grex while it is down.
During the recent unpleasantness, some folks were discussing the matter
on m-net, while others were using a web-based system called "posterous."
There were also some exchanges in e-mail. However, e-mail is not a good
solution for a conversation between many people.
So, where do we go when we can't go here?
|
| 30 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 1 of 30:
|
Jan 3 12:16 UTC 2010 |
both ...
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 2 of 30:
|
Jan 3 16:25 UTC 2010 |
I think "both" is a bad choice. We need a place _everyone_ will go to.
Remember, "An interpreter is someone who tells you what would be best
for him if the other guy said it."
|
mary
|
|
response 3 of 30:
|
Jan 3 16:43 UTC 2010 |
I was hoping enough people had yahoo or google accounts that a
google.group or yahoo.group would be an easy place to meet. There would
be a learning curve but it's slight and it's dead easy to customize how
you receive new posts. I'm kinda fond of both for conferencing.
|
denise
|
|
response 4 of 30:
|
Jan 3 17:47 UTC 2010 |
A yahoo group would work. Google could too, though I'm not familiar with
google groups yet.
|
cross
|
|
response 5 of 30:
|
Jan 4 00:36 UTC 2010 |
I'd say M-Net. "Both" is the wrong answer.
|
tsty
|
|
response 6 of 30:
|
Jan 6 04:55 UTC 2010 |
yeh, both might nowt be 'the singular best' but it;s not wrong, ok?
hte m-b0x takes tolearation of dirt pigs.
posterous, fwiw, as soone as you singe up, sends email to your respective
address with an opprotunity to reply into hte braided conv and everone
receives that as weell.
it;s not as familiare as bbs but it has its benefits ... again, not
;teh singular best' but not wroing wither.
a third idea ... jusat had the brain-bulb light ... woeuld be a
standby mini-grex housed somewhere with a decent intenernet connectoin.
wold just run one, maybe two .cfs with what everone is familiar with.
a stanby, mini-grex mighte not even be 'the singuarl best' but it;s
not wroing either.
|
tonster
|
|
response 7 of 30:
|
Jan 6 12:21 UTC 2010 |
at one point I ran 'down.arbornet.org' with a small instance of backtalk
that did something similar. if there's interest, it could be done for
grex too.
|
remmers
|
|
response 8 of 30:
|
Jan 12 16:21 UTC 2010 |
I think that's a good way to go - a small virtual machine running
backtalk, with a copy of Grex's password info so that Grex users
could log into it. Backtalk access only (no shell access),
accessible when (only when?) Grex is down. I'm assuming that
syncing of password info is feasible.
I set up the posterous thing as a stopgap measure. It's certainly
not ideal. Neither is hosting on a non-grex-controlled site like
M-Net. Grex should have its own site for this purpose.
|
tonster
|
|
response 9 of 30:
|
Jan 12 16:33 UTC 2010 |
well, the site I was running had it's own database of users (and created
via the backtalk newuser program). Syncing of the passwords might be
feasable, but I'm not going to sync grex's accounts to my password file,
so I'm not sure it'd be exactly straightforward.
|
tod
|
|
response 10 of 30:
|
Jan 13 19:56 UTC 2010 |
re #3
It's certainly
not ideal. Neither is hosting on a non-grex-controlled site like
M-Net. Grex should have its own site for this purpose.
Define: non-grex-controlled
The systems are almost identical in purpose and have shared staff.
|
remmers
|
|
response 11 of 30:
|
Jan 14 14:45 UTC 2010 |
Very different in culture, regardless what mission statements & such
might say. Have been for years.
By grex-controlled I mean operated by Cyberspace Communications, Inc.
|
tod
|
|
response 12 of 30:
|
Jan 14 20:22 UTC 2010 |
Does anyone know if M-Net and Grex could run on VMWare instances on one
box? Would a physical sharing still be a deal breaker for Cyberspace Comm?
(Curious why)
|
scholar
|
|
response 13 of 30:
|
Jan 14 20:41 UTC 2010 |
|
tonster
|
|
response 14 of 30:
|
Jan 15 05:51 UTC 2010 |
there is no reason why they could not both run on separate vmware
instances on the same physical hardware, aside from the previous
arguments put forth that such a thing is blasphemous.
|
mary
|
|
response 15 of 30:
|
Jan 15 12:50 UTC 2010 |
It's more who owns the hardware not who Grex is next to on that disk. I'd
like to see Grex stay as autonomous as possible. On one end of that
autonomy scale would be living on a machine that could be shut down on a
benefactor's whim and where we'd have no recourse. The other end would be
our being housed on a well-established, for profit enterprise system where
we'd have a contract and pay for service.
|
remmers
|
|
response 16 of 30:
|
Jan 15 14:51 UTC 2010 |
I agree with resp:15. Physical sharing of virtual instances (e.g.
VMWare, Xen, or some other virtualization technology) certainly
wouldn't be adeal-breaker to me. If you're running as a virtual
instance, the other instances you're sharing the hardware with are
essentially invisible to you, so why should anyone care if Grex is
sharing physical hardware with M-Net, StupidNet, LimbaughNet, or
whatever?
I actually suggested running Grex as a virtual machine on a
commercial hosting service some time ago, as a way of unloading
responsibility for the hardware, which has proven to be a serious
bottleneck (as the recent 5-week downtime clearly shows). See
item:248 for discussion of this. There are arguments for and
against, of course. Dan Cross and STeve Andre are very much
opposed to the idea.
|