More on manuals plus rescue
billdegnan at gmail.com
Thu Aug 20 10:20:26 CDT 2015
Whatever the motivation of the mirror operator, if you put it on the
web it's public and control is lost.
Not to worry - If your web site organizational structure is superior,
over time people will figure it out and ignore those who are out-dated
or less complete. "Content is King"
Most of us are lucky to have worked even briefly at these old
companies. I wonder what the founders of these companies would have
thought about us in 2015.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:
> On 8/20/15 5:49 AM, Kevin Anderson wrote:
>> I think it is great that Bitsavers material can be saved in more than one
>> location, whether that be identical mirrors on multiple servers or with
>> material copied into another environment.
> I completely disagree. Scott asked to 'mirror bitsavers'
> That is NOT what he did, and he is the ONLY person who has ever done this
> after asking for rsync access.
> Bitsavers looks the way it does for ONE reason, to make it trivial to mirror
> the hierarchy EXACTLY as it looks and
> to distribute the workload worldwide. Jay and I greatly appreciate the
> bandwidth that all of the mirrors provide.
> It is a dynamic document. Files get updated, some directories are split if
> they get too big. I have
> had one instance when I was asked to take down the contents of a directory,
> which I did. There are
> some quirks in the taxonomy, but they are that way to minimize the bandwidth
> impact of a wholesale
> reorganization on the rsync peers.
> What he has done is ripped off the content while NEVER agreeing to be one of
> the mirrors, freezing
> what he took and attempting to cluelessly make it 'accessable' burying it in
> something impossible for
> anyone ELSE to mirror. The files DON'T get fixed when I update them.
> There is no discussion about 'fixing' what he has done. The damage is
> already done.
> I have been torn about talking about this because it is a no-win situation.
> Pulling his access is pointless,
> you can just wget it.
> THAT is why I said he doesn't 'get it', and
> http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/3881 demonstrated that.
More information about the cctech