Re: GWeather suckage

[Mark McLoughlin <mark skynet ie>]

Hey,
	I think setting up weather.gnome.org would be the trivial part, to be
honest. Resolving the questions around whether we actually *should* do
this is more tricky e.g.:

	* Traditionally gnome.org has supplied software not services. Do we
want to move into the services arena ?

	* If we do weather, surely we want to do stock quotes, news etc.

	* Do we want to restrict the use of this service to GNOME software - I
don't even know how we'd do this ...

	* Who pays for the bandwidth ?

	* We would need to ensure we were rock solid legally before opening it
up - we couldn't just write a script to parse yahoo.com and hope they
don't notice.

	* If we did set it up, how long would we be talking about supporting it
for ... 5 years ?

	* Before some GNOME distributors could ship the software which used the
service, they may require some guarantees around availability and long
term support. Would be be prepared to give such guarantees ?

	
	Luckily, we have a board of directors who love resolving these sorts of
tricky dilemmas :-)

Cheers,
Mark. 

On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 16:27, Kevin Vandersloot wrote:
> Hi Luis. Yah, it would have helped, we just needed someone with time to
> set up weather.gnome.org ;) It's really just a problem with the server
> being down (and no way to contact the admin). We can consider it for 2.6
> since all the changes are still in the gweather-improve branch.
> 
> Regards,
> Kevin
> 
> On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 08:52, Luis Villa wrote:
> > Kevin-
> > Would this have been helped if we'd set up something at
> > weather.gnome.org as you suggested some months ago, or was the problem
> > at the layer below that?
> > 
> > Luis
> > 
> > On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 09:49, Kevin Vandersloot wrote:
> > > Hi All. It seems that weather.interceptvector.com has become unreliable in 
> > > recent days, thus rendering gweather useless. I propose to revert the 
> > > changes made in 2.3.x (while keeping them in the gweather-improve branch) 
> > > and we can consider the imporvements for 2.6. Is this okay despite the 
> > > feature freeze?
> > > 
> > > Kevin
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > > desktop-devel-list gnome org
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> > > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list