8 ms·

Why? I don't see any problem, the message seems quite clear; wikis (similar to forums) are hard to maintain (spam, server load & costs); new inventions are hard

by akavel 10y ago

Why? I don't see any problem, the message seems quite clear; wikis (similar to forums) are hard to maintain (spam, server load & costs); new inventions are hard to promote (federated wiki mentioned in the post); and maintenance work on hobby projects is gruesome and taxing (thus any chance at getting some leeway by any means available is invaluable).

ptero 10y ago
Would not it be better, as an interim state, to freeze the current content and provide it as static pages, likely with minimal server load.
- akavel 10y ago
  Not exactly a trivial task, and surely gruesome. And could still draw flak from some unhappy people anyway. And by the way - isn't the contents maybe available on the Web Archive already?
  - tome 10y ago
    Surely pretty trivial to forbid all edits?
  - the_duke 10y ago
    wget --mirror. Put it into a directory. Serve the directory. Done. (I'm simplifiying here of course, but as long as you can get the server running, it's not hard to make a static copy.) But yeah, it's all on archive.com: https://web.archive.org/web/20160326180126/http://c2.com/cgi/wiki/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160326180126/http://c2.com/cgi...?
    - cellularmitosis 10y ago
      Here's the result of running wayback_machine_downloader http://c2.com/cgi/wiki and then tarring and gzipping: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90674827/c2.tar.gz https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90674827/c2.tar.gz (~109MB)
- richardboegli 10y ago
  It's in the post: So why close? It gives me room to work. The continuous scraping bumps up against my web throttling making all other web services useless. Even shell is painfully slow.
  - startling 10y ago
    So, he's developing on the same server the c2 wiki runs on? One solution is to not do that.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      That was my observation. He should buy another server. Heck, he could even put it on a cheap, throwaway as the slow but available is better for static content than unavailable.
- inimino 10y ago
  Thus turning the original wiki into something non-editable? If it can't be maintained as a wiki, the experiment is already over, right? Ward Cunningham isn't under any obligation to provide static archives, and these already exist elsewhere. Edit: turns out this was already the case. What I really want to say is that we should respect Ward Cunningham's choices in maintaining the site how he wants, in whatever way works for him.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    It hasn't been editable for a long while now
    - inimino 10y ago
      I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the clarification.
  - ktRolster 10y ago
    I think the problem was that useful comments hadn't been added to it in a while, and most new comments were just spam of some sort or another.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > we should respect Ward Cunningham's choices in maintaining the site how he wants, in whatever way works for him This is an unhealthy attitude and I'm continually surprised that people say things like this. Having respect for someone does not mean that they are above criticism. It doesn't mean silent obedience. You can respect someone and still say, "hey, this thing you're doing is a bad idea."
    - inimino 10y ago
      Where did I say "above criticism" and what does "obedience" have to do with this? (Is Mr. Cunningham bossing you around?) The attitude that actually is unhealthy is when someone graciously provides a service to the community for years, and then stops doing that, and people whine as though they are entitled to the continuation of that service. Respect in cases like this should mean to appreciate the work done to keep the thing running until now, and if someone decides to stop doing that work, respect that choice, even if you don't understand it or agree with it.
- ChoHag 10y ago
  Evidence suggests not.

by akavel 10y ago

ptero 10y ago

Would not it be better, as an interim state, to freeze the current content and provide it as static pages, likely with minimal server load.

akavel 10y ago
Not exactly a trivial task, and surely gruesome. And could still draw flak from some unhappy people anyway. And by the way - isn't the contents maybe available on the Web Archive already?
- tome 10y ago
  Surely pretty trivial to forbid all edits?
- the_duke 10y ago
  wget --mirror. Put it into a directory. Serve the directory. Done. (I'm simplifiying here of course, but as long as you can get the server running, it's not hard to make a static copy.) But yeah, it's all on archive.com: https://web.archive.org/web/20160326180126/http://c2.com/cgi/wiki/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160326180126/http://c2.com/cgi...?
  - cellularmitosis 10y ago
    Here's the result of running wayback_machine_downloader http://c2.com/cgi/wiki and then tarring and gzipping: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90674827/c2.tar.gz https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90674827/c2.tar.gz (~109MB)
richardboegli 10y ago
It's in the post: So why close? It gives me room to work. The continuous scraping bumps up against my web throttling making all other web services useless. Even shell is painfully slow.
- startling 10y ago
  So, he's developing on the same server the c2 wiki runs on? One solution is to not do that.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    That was my observation. He should buy another server. Heck, he could even put it on a cheap, throwaway as the slow but available is better for static content than unavailable.
inimino 10y ago
Thus turning the original wiki into something non-editable? If it can't be maintained as a wiki, the experiment is already over, right? Ward Cunningham isn't under any obligation to provide static archives, and these already exist elsewhere. Edit: turns out this was already the case. What I really want to say is that we should respect Ward Cunningham's choices in maintaining the site how he wants, in whatever way works for him.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  It hasn't been editable for a long while now
  - inimino 10y ago
    I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the clarification.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  I think the problem was that useful comments hadn't been added to it in a while, and most new comments were just spam of some sort or another.
- dpark 10y ago
  > we should respect Ward Cunningham's choices in maintaining the site how he wants, in whatever way works for him This is an unhealthy attitude and I'm continually surprised that people say things like this. Having respect for someone does not mean that they are above criticism. It doesn't mean silent obedience. You can respect someone and still say, "hey, this thing you're doing is a bad idea."
  - inimino 10y ago
    Where did I say "above criticism" and what does "obedience" have to do with this? (Is Mr. Cunningham bossing you around?) The attitude that actually is unhealthy is when someone graciously provides a service to the community for years, and then stops doing that, and people whine as though they are entitled to the continuation of that service. Respect in cases like this should mean to appreciate the work done to keep the thing running until now, and if someone decides to stop doing that work, respect that choice, even if you don't understand it or agree with it.
ChoHag 10y ago
Evidence suggests not.