Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Popularity, visibility, and level of involvement

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Pavel Vinogradov <vin.public AT gmail.com>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Popularity, visibility, and level of involvement
  • Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 00:36:11 -0400

After all this I'm beginning to think that moving project to github wasn't
actually a bad idea. :)

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:53:14PM -0400, Vlad Glagolev wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> Sorry Jeremy, I didn't have time to argue with all of the below.
> The only thing I want to say is that I have always been free to give
> access to the server regarding beta+friends' fs level + sudo along with
> the site itself.
>
> But the truth is that the page:
>
> http://beta.sourcemage.ru/Authors
>
> still has only me, which means everyone has been busy without some time
> to edit a line on the resource and ask for access (which I offered
> several times). I don't want to blame anyone, though.
>
> Reality is that with your decision and controlling the domain, almost
> 1.5 years of user experience went to /dev/null. You've just proved that
> the desire to have it on specific hardware is more important than our
> web-presence and evolution of the project. Thanks for that.
>
> But okay, lesson learned. Too bad the price was too high though.
>
> To the team:
>
> Sorry for my personal outage (it never affected beta.sourcemage.ru and
> bugs.sourcemage.ru though :^), I've made relocation to NYC the hard way.
> But now everything is good, and I'll be using some free time to move
> beta and bugs to freki. It shouldn't take more than 2 weeks.
>
> Thanks.
>
> p.s. My opinion on move to PHP-based mediawiki and trashing all our bug
> database, -1 from me for both judgements regardless of the future path
> of the project.
>
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:03:11 -0500
> Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 08, Vlad Glagolev [stealth AT tiberian.ru] wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:28:17 -0500
> > > Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Oct 07, Vlad Glagolev [stealth AT tiberian.ru] wrote:
> > > > > Except now all primary distro resources are on both my and
> > > > > sobukus[0]
> > > > > servers'.
> > > >
> > > > No, the secondary resources are there. The things that hold the
> > > > primary
> > > > scm data and that the distro tools point to are primary, the things
> > > > those
> > > > things redirect to are secondary. This is why when we lost DBG, for
> > > > example, we were easily able to repoint everything to other
> > > > resources. And
> > > > if your nodes go away, we'd be able to do the same.
> > >
> > > You're saying that the hardware you pay for is primary, and along with
> > > that ours -- isn't, simply because it's not in your control.
> >
> > This is both wrong and backwards.
> >
> > The distro (not me, no matter how many times here you want to pretend I'm
> > acting as a lone wolf to inflame the conversation, it won't make it true)
> > decided many years ago it wanted to have a community approach to the
> > server
> > resources. That is, we wanted to move from taking advantage of the simple
> > offers to run primary things off various dev's resources (which are prone
> > to zero access to fix problems when they go down) and instead have hosting
> > resources the distro as a whole controls. And then have a design for
> > hosting that puts the primary resources there, so it's always where we can
> > work with it, and takes advantage of the donated stuff by just using it to
> > distribute load.
> >
> > And yes, distro control, not my control. We're not a 501(c) org or other
> > official entity to actually have it in the entity's name, or we would, but
> > by definition the PL and their designees at least always have as much full
> > access to these resources as can be accomplished without that.
> > Historically the CLs have had at least shell access, though with the
> > decline in people contributing the notion of CLs has nearly gone out the
> > window. And if the distro at any time adopted a policy requiring some
> > other access model, it *would be implemented*, regardless of what as I an
> > individual thought of it. The only caveat there being since it is in my
> > name if I had significant conerns about it opening me up to liability
> > (like, for example, if the distro voted to go all RMS and do away with
> > user
> > passwords or something), I would likely hand the ownership keys off to
> > someone else and get out of the way.
> >
> > I know this history pre-dates your involvement but feel to go read the
> > archives, it's all there.
> >
> > > But without sobukus' mirror there wouldn't be any ability for our users
> > > to download grimoires and code.
> >
> > This is flatly not true. The final contingency case if we don't have
> > other
> > secondary donated resources to distribute the load has *always* been to
> > host it directly off the primary. We don't do this when we have other
> > offers because those secondary ones usually have different data cap models
> > that are better suited to be software mirrors, but when we have to do it,
> > we can.
> >
> > There have been like a half dozen (at least) of these secondary
> > distributed
> > resources we've moved between as the offers have come and gone over the
> > years. ibiblio, DBG, various developer machines (seth, andrew, david, you,
> > etc.).
> >
> > > You call this hardware alien, but for our users this is the _only_
> > > hardware they get anything from us.
> >
> > More inflammatory nonsense. It's not "alien", it's a resource the distro
> > has no visibility into or way to manage if needed. That's all I've ever
> > said.
> >
> > > We're paying for our servers the same as you do for yours and call it
> > > distro's.
> >
> > It's not the distro's because of how it's paid for, it's the distro's
> > because the distro decided to create the resource and put things there and
> > has never opted to change its mind. It *does* have to get paid for, like
> > anything, and lately I happen to do that. But that has nothing to do with
> > the distro's decision to put stuff somewhere. You may as well make the
> > claim I'm only calling the name the distro's because I also happen to pay
> > for the registration of it.
> >
> > > We participate in distribution of the sources the same way, and have
> > > right to call them "distro's" as well, because they're primary nodes for
> > > our users to get the code;
> >
> > No, you don't have a right to call them the distro's, only the distro has
> > the right to call something the distro's. The distro is neither me nor
> > you. Me calling these resources "the distro's" and yours not is not some
> > ego talking, it's a meaningful distinction on who by policy controls the
> > thing.
> >
> > > not that mystic master server that is not visible to anyone.
> >
> > Our primary server resources are only slightly more "mystic" than our IRC
> > channels. They're where they have been for years, people interact with
> > them daily, whomever the distro says should have access to them has it.
> >
> > > We're all the same since we provide our own resources for the project.
> > > We do not have US visas, and instant access to that TX (or not?)
> > > datacenter
> > > if it's *the distro's* hardware you're calling. Do we?
> >
> > As a practical matter people not in the physical area of the hardware are
> > going to have problems getting to it, the same as I would have problems
> > getting to your stuff. But see above, the distro has every bit as much
> > direct access as can be provided and has been requested. To deal with the
> > physical distribution as well as the fact often the distro people haven't
> > been as sysadmin savvy as needed (this obviously varies with the person),
> > I've also historically provided contacts to other sysadmins in the
> > physical
> > area who are SMGL-friendly and have access to fill in for me, because
> > again, the distro wanted it that way.
> >
> > Maybe you just didn't realize this is how it really is?
> >
> > > If it's about some dedicated stuff, and not colocation stuff, we do not
> > > have access to the control panel to reboot, ask for maintenance and so
> > > on. There's only one key,
> >
> > You as an individual may not currently have it and maybe that's a
> > frustration for you but I'm not the only one that does, or the only one
> > that could. Given the general level of involvement in the distro it's
> > lately been just as quick for me to get to issues as anyone else but if
> > that ever wasn't the case David or Dave or the other Dave would be able to
> > get in. At least David has that contact info available, because he's the
> > PL. Before him I had that info, because I was the PL, and before him Eric
> > had it, because he was the PL. Their various assistants have also had
> > that
> > info over the years if that's what they were designated to assist with.
> >
> > If the distro today wanted to vote on a policy for that access and provide
> > me a list, I would implement that list. That's what "distro ownership"
> > means.
> >
> > But I'm glad you understand the need to have distributed keys so well,
> > because that is my entire point. Things the distro relies on as primary
> > sources (not things that just distribute the load) need to have the keys
> > in
> > the distro's control, not one person's.
> >
> > > and it doesn't seem to be very stable -- I'm
> > > talking about reliability: because of lack of proper mirroring our
> > > infrastructure is in awful state, and you say "hell no, we don't need
> > > to have mirrors!". I find it _very_ non-professional.
> > >
> > > But you've chosen to trash any user experience with our new website for
> > > such long period of time. You prefer it that way, I see.
> >
> > Vent however you need to that makes you feel better, man. I won't pretend
> > stuff isn't in disrepair, but I also won't call rational claims it's any
> > worse than the state of having a current ISO, or a developed sorcery, or a
> > maintained and tested stable grimoire.
> >
> > > First, spent several months for nothing. Now you're providing pretty
> > > senseless arguments to "protect" "the distro's" "future" from the
> > > non-controllable environment, which has been up and running and
> > > dedicated to *the project* for almost one year (the mirror(s) with
> > > some parts of codex, sorcery, isos -- for 5+ years, though).
> > >
> > > That's insane, and definitely shows what does this project mean to
> > > you, when in a name of invisible protection you can sink it without
> > > thinking how could that decision affect the future of the project.
> >
> > The request you put the stuff on the distro's server or give us the data
> > so
> > we can do it for you is about as simple and standard as they come. I'm
> > not
> > the one throwing fits instead of just doing that, but call what names you
> > want. This is a heckuva drawn out discussion resuling from a simple
> > request to put the files where the distro can get to them if needed.
> >
> > > > It's on a VM, right? Just get me the whole chroot tarball and I'll
> > > > just
> > > > put that up on freki.
> > >
> > > I would do that myself instead, but no, it just uses resources from one
> > > of my servers with configuration of everything. It's not that isolated
> > > thing.
> >
> > So not only would the distro not have ability to maintain it if you were
> > hit by a bus, that's not even likely to change, because it's not a
> > dedicated resource. And you think I'm the one insisting on individual
> > control?
> >
> > > But if we speak of bugs.sourcemage.ru, then yes, it's on a VM as I
> > > mentioned in May[0].
> >
> > I haven't seen as much interest in that as the www site but if the distro
> > (via the PL or other method) agrees they want that one as the bugtracker
> > then sure, send me the tarball and we'll get it up.
> >
> > > > > > > So I still propose to set up temporary proxying from at least
> > > > > > > sourcemage.org and www.sourcemage.org hosts and/or change DNS
> > > > > > > records
> > > > > > > instead of wasting even more time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you currently don't have the time to do the migration, how do
> > > > > > you have
> > > > > > the time to maintain it on your hardware?
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't need what you call maintenance or "maintenance" that
> > > > > happens
> > > > > to our current distro infrastructure. Once properly set up, it just
> > > > > works with cosmetic updates of some stuff -- so it doesn't take much
> > > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > This is an odd claim to make given your other complaints about the
> > > > current
> > > > infrastructure below. Infrastructure always requires maintenance
> > > > over time
> > > > or it degrades. Our current stuff is not in disrepair because it's
> > > > overly
> > > > complex or requires specialized knowledge, like everything else in
> > > > this
> > > > distro it's in disrepair because of lack of people helping, and lack
> > > > of
> > > > time from those that help. Over years your setup will show the same
> > > > problems without regular maintenance, let alone what happens without
> > > > regular security updates.
> > >
> > > And that's what I was talking about[1]. My setup is already "over
> > > years", in many places, up to 10 years in a very good shape.
> > >
> > > I'll tell you a secret: that's about who uses and wants to use it.
> > > Everything will be fine if you're involved in development and use stuff,
> > > and rotten (what we see now) if you're not really interested. That's not
> > > about lack of people, but about lack of interest from your own side.
> >
> > Except that I'm never claiming to be the only one to manage the distro
> > server resources, or making it rely on just my time. Staying away from
> > that model is pretty much the point, and why I'm not willing to just point
> > the DNS at your thing that is on your box with other things and only you
> > control. Where we have things now is in disrepair but it's a shared
> > resource, the distro is in charge of how it's managed and anyone in the
> > distro can get in and help with it, whether they do or not is another
> > issue. That's the secret to let it go on even if the person who was doing
> > it has less time. Again, just like sorcery, or codex, or iso.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Vlad Glagolev <stealth AT tiberian.ru>



> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss


--
Sincerely,
Pavel Vinogradov

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page