On 5/16/2011 1:47 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>>
>> Agreed on the security comment, hence the concern about timely updates.
>> It is pretty much a given that any public site will be hit with all
>> known exploit attempts, but it is somewhat unsettling to think that the
>> project itself considers that to be a problem. But, most of both the
>> 'pounding' and security issues can be handled with a simple caching
>> reverse-proxy server easily configured in squid/apache/nginx, etc.. And
>> with build automation frameworks like jenkins/hudson, the results and
>> logs are collated on a central server that mostly does scheduling, not
>> the actual work: http://ci.jenkins-ci.org/builds.
>>
> Wonderful except it is a build server ... and certain things need to
> function without a proxy.
That's not a particular problem. You can have a public reverse-proxy
that knows how to access a subset of an otherwise firewalled or
certificate-requiring site without affecting the other ways you can
access the source side directly.
> It doesn't matter though, because regardless of what I do, it is not
> enough for you.
>
> I am already busting my ass to give a $2500.00 piece of software to you
> for free, to use as many times as you want to ... saving you as much
> money as $2500.00 x<number_you_run>
>
> Now, not only do I need to bust my ass to provide it to you for free,
> but I also need to do other things for you to. I need to provide you
> access to stuff and I need to track things in a different way and I need
> to setup elaborate systems. AND, I need to tell you exactly how I build
> it too.
You are completely missing the point here, which is not to beat you up
for not doing better with limited resources. I believe that by making
the process and its problems public, someone will help solve those
problems as they do in many, many other projects where the work is open.
That both reduces the need for you to bust your ass and speeds up the
availability for everyone else. You may not agree that this would
happen and of course it is your call, but please don't mischaracterize a
suggestion that has been shown to work elsewhere as a personal demand
for anything.
> Can't you ungrateful bastards take the free software I make by following
> the licensing requirements and be happy with that?
If you could look at this objectively from a user's side, would you be
happy with a timeframe rounding up to a year?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
