[OSM-talk] Database Maintenance

Dave Stubbs 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 mailing list