Re: [ML] Hosting of gnustep.org

[Ivan Vučica]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:11 PM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com> wrote:
> It did not need any maintainance in between. But it could be copied to
> any Linux host with apt-get install apache2 php mysql in ca. 30 minutes.

This assumes you're always around -- or someone else that has dealt
with PHP and MySQL is around.

>
> > Existing system works, and it'll keep on working, but I am neither
> > submitting software to the existing system or contributing changes to
> > it.
>
> Why not?

- The code is not in the main repos
- The deployment procedure is unclear
- I don't have admin privileges to touch the database
- Even as a regular user I don't have any sort of login credentials.

> > Moving off of it means less maintenance for whoever's running
> > machine underlying gnustep.org, and easier contributions by people who
> > can write Markdown, but not necessarily want to touch PHP.
>
> Nobody needs to write PHP (except me as I have written the original
> code).

No other person who wants to modify the site should need to touch PHP?

> You as the user do not need to work that way. Like on Wikipedia you
> do not get into touch with the MediaWiki code (which is also PHP + MySQL).
>
> You just type content into the web form and press the submit button.

Assuming that's the only thing that should be done.

> > Storing a list of software in a version control system seems like a
> > much simpler solution.
>
> That is probably a misconception. The database *is* a version control
> system. Just not git.

How trivial is it for me to clone it to my local system *right now*
without having any access to the database, or any login credentials?

How do I know who is the approver for the changes?

> > "It already exists" is an easy answer ignoring the question "who has
> > the backups, who can create the backups, who can approve the changes,
> > who can fork the site, and who maintains and pays for the existing
> > system".
>
> There are answers, but nobody has asked yet.

Well now.

> > Static documentation sites edited via version control systems are
> > absolutely normal today.
> >
> > And adding minimal interactivity via Javascript is the very reason why
> > Javascript came to be in the nineties.
>
> Yes, I know the history. And because JavaScript has limitations there
> is still a lot of server-side activities. And PHP and MySQL became the
> standard after that.

They're less and less of a standard these days.