THE FUTURE OF THIS FORUM - PLEASE READ

Like many so far, I too would have to vote for Photo.net, albeit

reluctantly. I remember the MFD back in its early days, when it was

just a mailing list, and to be honest I don't think its character has

changed much, apart from becoming bigger and more comprehensive as the

years have gone by. Integrating the LF Forum into photo.net would be

far better than the Yahoo option.

We are in the process of re-doing our web page. What would it take

for View Camera magazine to be the host??

<p>

steve simmons

Given the general feeling, I think we should stick with

the current software or its extensions.

<p>

This software is OpenACS, which is an improved open-source

version of the software at greenspun.com

see: http://openacs.org

<p>

In particular, correct me if I am mistaken, but I'm under the

impression that:

(a) one would need to dedicate a machine to the system, as it

is not common to have servers running Aolserver. this increases

commercial hosting fees significantly. I suppose I could run

it from a home server, but this raises reliability issues.

(b) the software is relatively complex and would take a couple

of days to master for someone experienced in this area (and

probably a couple of weeks for me).

<p>

I don't know what is the bandwidth use of the current site as

I have no access to statistics. Here are the numbers I have:

The data in the QA Forum is currently 28M for nearly 40000 messages.

There are about 1000 active participants (probably ten times as many

readers), and the number of new messages per day is about 40.

<p>

Hosting from View Camera would require a significant step up

of their web site. Their hosting fees would jump maybe twenty times

(from the

current website easily ran from a $10/month

web host) and they would have to subcontract the instalation

of ACS to a software engineer.

If we go with a (semi)

commercial route

photo.net has readily the resources in engineering, software, and servers.

Wow. I like that solution even better if it can be done. Move the

forum to the _View Camera_ magazine site, if Steve Simmons will have

it.

I am offering to run a seperate server from my apartment here in LA,

day and night - free of charge. (I live in an apartment with

utilities pre-paid by owner, whom I can't stand). Reliability will be

excellent, except when me and the guy donstairs cook dinner on our

electric hot plates at the same time. andre

Q. - Tuan,

<p>

I was about to reply to your email, but after reading some of the

recent messages, I thought I would respond here, to offer some advice

to those offering assistance.

Everyone needs to understand that to provide a server for the site in

order to maintain it in its current form would not be a casual (or

inexpensive) undertaking. You must be well-versed in "C" programming

and Unix/Linux, have a thorough understanding of Oracle (and a

licensed copy) or other 1st-line DBS, have a good/fast machine that

you are willing to turn over completely to the effort, a "pipe" to

the internet, etc. etc.

<p>

Aolserver, that runs the show operates on Unix/Linux and functions as

the network operating system. OpenACS, the BB module, operates within

Aolserver. While modular, it is not for the inexperienced.

<p>

I have a Unix box with a T1 pipe, and thought I might be able to host

the site in conjunction with (or as a part of) a site I am

developing. This site is intended to offer a forum for users to

display their work, offer mutual critique, and provide user written

articles of LF interest - so I thought it would be a perfect fit. But

I now realize that hosting this board in its current form is more

than I can do. I do not own a copy of Oracle, nor am I willing to (or

have time)learn a new, complicated piece of software.

I am confused as to why Greenspun cannot continue to host, but is

willing to fold it into photo.net - when the site resides on his

server already.

<p>

Anyway, I have a few questions for the group:

(email me if you prefer)

<p>

What is it about this site in its current form that makes you NOT

want it in another interface? Isn't the content why you are here?

Given the same content, what does the page formatting mean to you?

<p>

I would still offer to host, just with a different engine.

In Answer to Steve Simmons... a much better web site than you

presently have? Re-doing is an understatement.. View Camera's web

site is basically non existant. Its there purely to tell us how much

it will cost us to renew subscriptions, or how much to advertise and

what has been featured in past issues.

Steve, please feel free to email me and let me know just how good

View Camera intends to be 'online?'

I believe that we are seeing here the same pressures that are being

felt by many other non-commercial web sites. Once they reach a

critical mass, they either must either be run by someone who is

financially independent and so can pay someone else to do the work, or

who is willing and has the time to do the work, or the site must be

commercialized to some extent. We cannot expect Tuan to devote his

life to this site. Nor do I belive that casual offers for hosting can

be accepted unless the person has a demonstated history of running

such sites.

<p>

That being said, I believe that it would be appropriate for this site

to be associated with the View Camera site. I also believe that it

would be reasonable for Steve Simmons to ask for a small annual

subscription fee. It could start at $10-20/year. Quite frankly, if

you can afford a computer, ISP charges, and a LF camera setup, you can

afford $20/year for access to this site.

<p>

The biggest problem with alignment with an existing commercial site

would be maintaining editorial independence. Contributors must

continue to be free to respectfully criticize films, cameras, lenses,

workshops, etc. without worrying about the budgetary impact of such

criticism. If Steve and his financial backers are comfortable with

that, I personally would be willing to put up with ads from Kodak,

Fuji, Schneider, Rodestock, etc. in addition to paying a small annual

fee.

<p>

I must admit that my reasons for opposing incorporation of this site

into photo.net are more intuitive than concrete. I don't have a good

feeling about the site, nor about the motivation of Greenspun. I am

particularly bothered by his absence in this discussion.

<p>

Finally, I would like to thank you, Tuan, for taking this site further

than I would have believed possible for someone with a day job and a

real life.

<p>

Bruce

Whoa, Nigel, let's cut Steve S. some slack (and please, don't turn

that mild criticism into a separate thread and flame war). As far as I

know, no magazine anywhere on the web has found a long-term model for

running a web site that doesn't lose money or just barely break

even--indeed, excepting brilliant concepts like ebay, most of the

successful web sites I know of are run either as charities or as

sidelines of already-successful bricks-and-mortar operations. (Heck,

the jury's still out on whether Amazon can make a go of it, and if

they can't...). Until successful web models are identified and

created, in other words, I don't blame printed magazines for having

limited content on their web sites: there's no reason they should give

away their best stuff for free, thereby hurting their very bread and

butter.

<p>

I think of the owner of "The F Stops Here" camera store, who started

an online forum and it quickly turned into a place where people bought

and sold equipment directly to each other at no benefit to the site's

host--in other words, his forum was undercutting his business (I

always thought he should ask for 5 or 10 percent of any sales made

through his forum). As noted above, seamlessly hosting a large

interactive web site is a tremendously complex and expensive

undertaking, a reality oft overlooked by visitors blithely clicking on

these sites. Its glossy appearance notwithstanding, View Camera

magazine is not a highly lucrative operation that can afford to run a

complex but free-admission web site if it would cut into the income of

the printed magazine.

<p>

I'm heartened by Steve Simmons's query about hosting this site (and it

WAS merely a query, not a firm offer). It would be a great match but I

wonder whether it would be a good idea (for him OR the forum) over the

long term as this site continues to get more complex. If he decides

it's impractical, and none of the individuals offering to host it can

make a credible multi-year commitment, I think photo.net is the best

(albeit not ideal) option.

<p>

............................

You guys know more about this stuff than me. I'll follow the

discusion to its new home, and I'll pop a cheque in the mail to where

ever it needs to go. Though I think if there is a charge, there

should be a 6 month window for new people -- this is a great resourse

and I think memebership fees might seal it up. So, if possible,

please try to keep it open.

Dean

It is not my intention to do an online magazine. As to placing

articles on the site this is a problem. If I post them free than why

will people subscribe??? I could post them and make entry into the

site dependant on either being a subscriber or having a password paid

for by a subscription fee. There could be two areas for the site - or

more accuratley two divisions. One free for discussion only and one

subscriber/fee based.

<p>

I am going to send my web person the address for this page and ask

him what would be involved in being a host.

<p>

steve simmons

I too wonder about Mr Greenspun's motivation for closing the server

on this forum while still maintaining the photo.net forum (I don't

blame him - he can't go on absorbing a cost such as this indefinitely

and has my thanks for doing so until now). If the reasons are purely

financial, perhaps he will accept an offer of subscription fees (or

ads in place of the articles at the bottom of the page) to keep the

forum afloat.

<p>

My vote is to:

1) bribe Phil to keep the forum running on the current server.

2) find a new server to host the forum in the current format.

3) move to photo.net if 1) and 2) are not possible.

4) commit hari-kari en masse if the forum goes to yahoo ;-)

<p>

Regards,

Graeme

Tuan, I'm not up to speed on many of the software issues you describe,

but can offer a simplistic explanation of what's good about this site

in its current form. Someone brought up the "F Stops Here" bulletin

board. The user interface there is rather hostile. It has no

categories, no "recent answers" function, etc. A few

(non-photographic) forums I visit don't even place all posts from a

single thread together, forcing one to "go back" for each one.

Despite occasional complaining about your LF forum's lack of a

dedicated search function, OpenACS is extremely user friendly. I know

that all the convenient tools we currently enjoy - - and

hopefully the archives too - - would still be available under

photo.net, and will not complain if you migrate us there. It just

seemed worthy of a post to suggest the View Camera lashup. If that's

not practical, so be it. I hope Phil has invited you to continue as

moderator in a "separate photo.net LF forum" arrangement. Thanks one

more time!

First YAHOOGROUPS - I'm not quite sure what the big deal is here? I

am on several pro photo groups on Yahoo and never seem to have a

problem - e mails come fine, no ads, archives search works well (in

fact one or two groups that run on their own servers actually archive

to Yahoo so they are searchable). I can access them via the web when

I'm away. I've experienced none of the apparent woes...

<p>

Secondly, I've never especially like way the photo.net group is run,

so I wouldn't be a fan of linking up more closely with that - I think

this group would lose much of it's independence.

<p>

Thirdly, neither am I fan of being set up on the Viewfinder site. I

seem to remember cases of people pulling stuff from their sites after

heated discussion on the internet about some topic or other. Who's to

say that wouldn't happen here in similar circumstances, with the plug

being pulled on the list? (oh Steve, and as for articles on websites -

no, I know of few that make money, but I note the likes of

Photovision does... it's what led to me to subscribe to them!).

<p>

So I'm in favour of either an independent server, or Yahoogroups.

<p>

Tim A

<p>

Kevin

Q:

<p>

I have been watching this forum, and occasionally contributing for

about 4 years. It's been a unique & rich source of information about

large format photography. I have been involved with the medium format

forum at Photo.net for about the same time. It generally works ok,

and far better than Yahoo. Aside from your ideal situation, my vote

is to move to the Photo.net sit as a separate category.

<p>

~Ted

Greetings,

<p>

I agree with most of the previous posts; this is a valuable resource

and should continue, unfortunately I don't see many options. Someone

suggested a fee if that would help fund another option. Personally, I

would rather see a site similar to Philip's for a fee rather than

Photo.net. I would also rather see it go to Photo.net than go away

completely.

<p>

Regards,

Q or other who takes on resposibilty, seriously: Make promise to

archive all people's email who contributed on this site. Take time

to develop BETTER system. Send email when it's up and running.

<p>

Why does anyone think we should settle for moving backwards? We have

something really good here, and technology is moving forward too.

Responses to go to photonet/yahoo route seem pessimistic, and are

baffling.

Q

I just wish to thank you for providing such an informative and

stimulating forum. I've been reading this for a year or so and never

miss reading every thread every day. I don't know much about

computers, hosting and the like but I do know I thoroughly enjoy this

forum. I am always searching for more information and ideas about my

choosen field and this forum provides the ideal begining for this

quest. All I can add to this is that where ever you go we will follow.

I personally would be more than willing to contribute to keep this

forum on it's own server. I'm surprised more people haven't suggested

this. This forum is better than any photo mag I've ever read. I would

not object to contributing in any way, or to paying a user fee for

that matter. People have gotten used to getting stuff for free on the

�net and it's gotten out of hand. If you're worried about excluding

newbies, offer a 30 day �guest' membership. I've learned more from

this forum than from any magazine - but's let's keep it free from

advertisement, pop up windows, and all the other nonsense. I'm also

surprised that Mr. Simmons suggestions have been so roundly rebuffed.

Seems like a natural to me as long as the technical issues can be

worked out, AND the forum doesn't become a vehicle for View Camera

Magazine. Seems like a good fit to me.

<p>

If there is no other alternative to becoming part of the photo.net,

please don't adopt the ridiculous hero icons that has become a part of

photo.net. All they do is to diminish the value of the rest of the

contributors. Talk about elitistism....

I learned MF through Medium Format Forun and LF through your kind

selves, I bought a "new" attractive Spanish LF learning book last week

but ended up giving it away, I was way ahead of it's entire contents

thanks to this forum.

<p>

This forum has its unique "air" about, it not found in the MF of any

other forum, obviously due to the fact that we have to be a bit

eccentric to be into LF and we are bonded by this "madness". I think it

is normal that people are trying to protect this unique environment

from "outside contamination" but I really don't think that the forum

will suffer from being on Photo.net (as other posters have pointed out

MF forum has not suffered), people usually leave "nutters" alone.

<p>

go for it Q.-Tuan Luong

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">

<html>

<head>

<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0;

U) [Netscape]">

</head>

<body>

Just an offer, you are welcome to join us at <a

href="http://www.usefilm.com">http://www.usefilm.com</a>

and participate. If you want a large format discussion forum to be

created

I can create one for all of you to participate in and get it going,

then

try to port over the old data. Take a look and if you want one, it can

be up in less than a day. We already have other forums running on the

server.

The forums currently support image uploads as well as all the

comments.

<br> 

<br> 

<br> 

<br> 

<br> 

</body>

</html>

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">

<html>

<head>

<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0;

U) [Netscape]">

</head>

<body>

Since I tend to hate delays, I enabled the new large format

photography

forum just now <a

href="http://www.usefilm.com/forums.php">http://www.usefilm.com/forums

.php</a>

<br>If you want it, feel free to use it.<a

href="http://www.usefilm.com/forums.php"></a>

<p>al

<br><a href="http://www.usefilm.com/forums.php"></a> 

<br> 

<br> 

<br> 

</body>

</html>