Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> Every tangible point in this summary appears to rest on the
> assumption that we need to have multiple physical servers to support
> the non-free/main split. This doesn't make sense to me: all we really
That's not very true, only the last paragraph contains this point.
Probably means you disagree with the others <shrug>
> need are multiple DNS names for the two services. [If we're not going
> to guarantee different IP addresses for the distinct names then we need
> to guarantee that the paths are different, but That's Not A Big Deal.]
The way the proposal has been phrased an discussed requires at a minimum
different IPs so that users canot be confused by seening non-free stuff on
the main server. (that 'It is too Specific' point..) Getting another IP
might be doable but we still wouldn't have a machine to use for the new
'master.non-free' which some people want.
> We *should* have primary servers where the ip addresses are different,
> but that wouldn't have to happen right away (at least, not the way I
> understand the issue).
Maybe I should add that explicitly to the text then because it IS what