[OSM-talk] Database Maintenance
osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk
Mon Aug 6 10:01:57 BST 2007
On 05/08/07, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> Dave Stubbs wrote:
> > On 30/07/07, Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen at vrijschrift.org> wrote:
> > A lot more money might help... it's hard to be "professional" on a
> > shoe string, with volunteers who would probably like to be not up all
> > night as they probably have to go to work at some point.
> > And just to put this in perspective. My highly "professional" bank has
> There's a whole lot wrong with this reasoning. It's not the
> bank's (or telephone company's) money that makes them keep their
> servers up. They'd rather pay bonuses to their management or
> dividends to their owners, than spend money on keeping servers up.
> The driving force is the competition and the bank's fear of losing
> business. OSM (and Wikipedia and most open source projects)
> doesn't have competition (or fear), so it can abuse its
> contributors and users as it pleases.
Umm.. I think you missed my point. Obviously a bank (or anybody else)
isn't going to spend money on something unless it helps them make
money. What you say is true: the bank will prioritise server uptime
only if it gets them extra cash. But still, they wouldn't take the
server *down* unless it was going to cost them a heap more money to
keep them up.
So paraphrasing: you need a motive to ensure uptime.
Unfortunately you need money too. Good intentions aren't everything.
It's a heck of a lot easier to reduce downtime when you have server
farms and swarms of dedicated developers at your disposal.
Getting into the mind bending implications of a volunteer project
engaged in self-abuse that you bring up there: OSM solving this
problem would probably result in significant abuse to some of it's
biggest contributors and users (ie: most of the sysadmins and
developers having to do stupid amounts more work).
It doesn't make much sense to me to phrase it so negatively.
More information about the talk