Prioritisation vote: [Theforum] Re: meo

.jeff jeff at members.evolt.org
Mon May 20 15:51:52 CDT 2002


lachlan,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Lachlan Cannon
>
> > imo, meo is a bottomless pit. [...]
>
> And beo isn't?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i'm assuming that's the portion of my post this question was in response to.

the truth is, it's *all* a bottomless pit since we're not a commercial
venture and don't reap a financial reward from any of it.

the trick is to figure out what we can keep that offers the most back to
existing community members and be a draw for other potential members.

truth is, meo services 200+ members, but doesn't really offer anything to
non-members, unless they join us.  the same isn't true of beo.  it helps
everyone.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> It doesn't require increased hardware, but as browsers
> get bigger, and we getmore of them, and beo gets more
> famous, it'sgoing to suck up increasing amounts of
> bandwidth
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

fwiw, this is pure speculation.

an alternative viewpoint would be that as time goes on, certain browsers
that are often downloaded now will become less popular in favor of others
causing beo to maintain some form of equilibrium.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> - at least meo can have a bandwidth cap -
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

that's nothing saying we can't do the same for beo as well.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> if it gets too much bandwidth usage then review current
> members' standing, and make it harder to get an account.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

sure, but managing that requires even more work.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> (also, Dan mentioned a while ago about people using meo
> only for image hosting -- we need someone to send out a
> warning to meo members, and then conduct an audit of
> accounts sometime soon, and delete the ones used for
> image / filehosting - just a thought).
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

and more work.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > why isn't deo higher on the list?  well, it's
> > php/mysql which is a dime a dozen for hosting out
> > there.  it should be a trivial task to find a cheap
> > or free host for that.
>
> OTOH - doesn't deo already have all it needs in it's
> present environment?  why not include it in the weo
> area (which I'm assuming includes feo as well. It's
> not a huge bandwidth / hardware hog.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

it's not included in the list because doing so will create a tougher match
to make for leo/weo/teo hosting if we're not able to use our existing boxes.
we're already looking for linux/cf5 for weo/teo.  add linux/python for leo.
add php/mysql for deo.  now we're talking about a pretty serious mess of
services to try match potential hosts against.  it doesn't need to be that
way.

deo isn't currently (that i'm aware of) tied in to anything leo/weo related.
so, hosting it somewhere else would be trivial.

just my opinion,

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/







More information about the theforum mailing list