On Friday, July 17, 2015 03:30:26 PM Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote: > On 15 Jul, Michael Niedermayer wrote : > > longer awnser, > > videolan IIUC would be willing to host some of our services > > on their existing server but this would require a "quite a bit" of > > work. videolan uses LXC we do not. > > Indeed, and there is a good reason for that, called security. > > > also videolan of course would have to agree to everything, its their > > server of course ... > > VideoLAN has very powerfull machines, connected in a correct datacenter, > with a contract, that will outlive any single member. > > Don't take it bad, but seeing the discussions, and the way you manage > your roots and services migration, you don't seem to care that much > about being correctly deployed, but to do it fast. > > LXC provides service separation and avoid security issues to propagate, > and allows also reuse of VideoLAN infrastructure, if needed (SMTP, same > Web proxy, etc...). It allows VLC and non-VLC services to not conflict, > and allows people to have only access to one LXC. > > I understand that you do not care about such security, but we do. > > With my kindest regards, > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Kempf > http://www.jbkempf.com/ - +33 672 704 734 > Sent from my Electronic Device > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
It will be also better, from the part of VideoLAN to be the FFmpeg project hoster. -- Best Regards, Kais Bensalah GnuPG fingerprint: 1739 7374 28CE 88A8 AD6F 0D9C B9CB 7046 4E5E BF34 If the software you use is not free, then you are not free ..
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
