Re: About the project

Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab-S0/[email protected]> Sat, 06 Aug 2016 20:43:10 +0200
Newsgroups	gmane.network.freenet.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Ian writes:

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab-S0/[email protected]>
>  wrote:
>> We already have a wiki. Why not https://wiki.freenetproject.org?
>>
>
> Because why make the devops of a web server our problem (eg. dealing with
> security, sudden traffic influxes, etc), when we can make it someone else's
> problem (ie. Github's)?  We should focus on the software we're creating,
> not on devops for websites.

Because using yet another wiki makes the conversion of the existing
content and the replacement of all the incoming links our problem.

And that’s a problem at which we already failed once (in the transition
From the old wiki to the current wiki which is still not finished).

>> As I already wrote, using the new design for a landing site like
>>
>> https://get.freenetproject.org
>>
>> and keeping the current site would void all these problems. We would
>> have a cool, low maintenance site to show new users without having to
>> convert all existing content and forward the links.
>>
>
> That's definitely an option we should consider as an interim step, so long
> as traffic to http://freenetproject.org/ goes to the new site, not the old
> one.

That should easily be possible, even with simple tools like .htaccess or
a meta-redirect on the index page.

>> I don’t. But from what I saw in the past years, we cannot predict which
>> guide will become popular. There are several existing tutorials by other
>> people. The pattern of activity on Freenet tutorials is pretty erratic.
>
> Perhaps we can find a solution that will give us flexibility in how we
> route inbound URLs to specific content.

I think we already have that. It was needed to keep old links working
when we did the last transition.

>> Then let me ask you in your role of chief marketing officer: Why do you
>> prefer redesigning from the ground up over fixing what is broken on the
>> acustung site?
>
> Because I think the problems with the existing site are fundamental, and it
> would be very inefficient to solve them incrementally.

Do I understand it correctly that with that you mean you consider the
cost of fixing the current site incrementally to be higher than the cost
of redoing what is needed to make everything work with a rewrite?

(just trying to understand how you do your cost calculation)

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 818 B)