Subject:
|
Re: Brickshelf going away???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:34:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8122 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
> I don't think disk space is really the issue so much as bandwidth. IIRC he
> filled up 2 T1's easily, which ain't cheap. People use BrickShelf a LOT. And I
> think the vast majority of files are things like Bionicle avatars that get hit
> like mad. But since they're small, they might not soak up as proportionally
> large portion of the bandwidth, I dunno.
I'm not sure what a Bionicle avatar is, but I do agree that bandwidth is likely
the major expense.
> I think the issue is mostly maintenance and new code. A new payment system is
> tricky, especially when dealing with "Hey, I paid, how come I have a problem"
> type things that inevitably happen. Money makes it tricky. It's a fine idea in
> that it's feasible and all, but first you need to find someone who's willing to
> DO it :)
Right. And, while I'm not disparaging Kevin's efforts -- Brickshelf has been a
valuable service to the community for years -- its functionality is pretty
limited, and I've never seen its behavior change. Such major changes to the
code may simply be more than Kevin can afford to do.
> Plus, if it cost money, there's always the risk of making it chase people away
> who would otherwise use it. If it were a pay service, it obviously wouldn't get
> used as much. I kinda like the idea of a "free basic service" with a "premium
> package" or something so that it's still free, but can generate income.
Even better I think would be a truly free service, using the open-source model.
Anyone with the skills and motivation could contribute to the code -- and I
think we'd always have at least a couple dozen such folks in the ALE community.
And the bandwidth problem could be solved by not actually hosting the images on
the site, but instead, making it responsible only for the indexing and
reporting. The actual images would go elsewhere. Those of us who have our own
web sites could put them there; others could use any of the dozens of other
photo sites, or use a free web host, or whatever.
Such a system should scale very well, I would think, and couldn't really
disappear as long as anyone was still interested in it.
Best,
- Joe
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Brickshelf going away???
|
| (...) Outside linking to images could be something to cut out. (...) What about a free will funds drive like Peeron did? That seemed to work out for them. Is it feasible? (...) This would definitely drop the BandWidth cost. Most internet providers (...) (19 years ago, 3-Jun-05, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Brickshelf going away???
|
| (...) It's a new acronym that's being tossed around to replace 'AFOL'-- ALE = "Adult Lego Enthusiast" (...) I don't think disk space is really the issue so much as bandwidth. IIRC he filled up 2 T1's easily, which ain't cheap. People use BrickShelf (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.general)
|
125 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
