On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 08:04:37PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Kieran Kunhya <kier...@obe.tv> wrote: > > > On 17 July 2015 at 22:00, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > > wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:16:53PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:30:26PM +0200, 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. > > >> > > >> iam not taking it bad but when you are being told your boxes could be > > >> shutdown without prior notice by the new managment, then yes you try > > >> to move fast, which is what we did. > > >> Not because thats a great thing to do but because it was needed > > > > > > also speaking of that, id like to take the opertunity to thank everyone > > > who helped making that quick move to the current servers possible > > > That is at least alex, arpi, fabrice, beastd, kieran, reimar, roberto, > > > lou, tim, ubitux and probably more who i have forgotten to list > > > > > > In principle we could stay at these servers but i think its better > > > if we use the time available now to move things to some free, > > > higher end servers and hosting and also if possible (volunteers) > > > move to something like LXC or qemu/kvm in the process and have > > > services properly seperated > > > > > > That would give us better servers, more robust hosting than what you > > > get with a 50euro/mo box. more security and at less cost. > > > > Sorry but this is a bizzare and short-sighted goal. Whilst I am sure > > most of the offers mean well it's much better to get help from the > > community because at least we know who they are, where the data is > > stored, easily contactable etc. The person offering free hosting could > > just leave their company and the machine wiped one day. > > > J-B offered that videolan will host ffmpeg. I, for one, would be thrilled > if that were to happen. I trust videolan a lot.
so do i, i trust JB, but will JB still be in charge in 5 years? in 10 years? can we trust whoever will come after JB ? I think FFmpeg should stay with a "neutral" provider/hoster. We did something like this once when moving away from sourceforge and it ultimately resulted in the libav fork. [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners. -- Vladimir Lenin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
