21 Mar
2007
21 Mar
'07
2:06 p.m.
Jules wrote....
In the interests of saving the planet by not wasting
resources, why not
let the subscribers choose when they want their next update? Just give 'em
10/12/whatever "free updates" and leave it up to them when they want them.
After they're all used up, they need to renew their subscription.
Great idea.
That way, they don't pay for updates they don't receive (if the
particular tree they are tracking doesn't change much). They could even set
parameters like, only send me a cd if there are more than 20 files updated,
or until 6 months passes with some updates at least - whichever comes first.
Do many people ask for full copies? Given that the
mirrors exist, I'm
surprised people feel the need to have everything; I doubt any person has
every single system for which there's a bitsavers manual :-)
I don't have
stats at hand, but yes... people do ask for full copies
occasionally. And definitely there's people that occasionally download the
entire site or at least major sections of it.
p.s. is there any benefit in having a separate mailing
list for
"operational" ideas - not just to do with the classiccmp site, but things
like the discussion over Dave's software repository? I'm sure there are
many subscribers here who only have an interest in the physical vintage
hardware / software / docs, not all the "service" type discussion that
often goes on. Just a thought, anyway.
I've been wanting to have a separate
list for classiccmp policy discussion.
That may keep some of the more heated discussions off the main list. If
people buy into my idea for the global software/classicdata repository I'd
be happy to set up another list for discussion of that record format,
techniques, design discussion, etc. That all being said, it's also no big
deal if someone wants the classiccmp server to host a small list for some
other purpose.
Fairly soon we'll need to have a discussion about the classiccmp server
hardware, it's definitely time for an upgrade. Disk at the very least. I
hate going through the server hardware discussion on the list, but it's
probably not something that needs another separate list? I dunno. Open to
ideas.
Jay