huw_evans2 Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_simmons1 Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qtluong Posted December 6, 2001 Author Share Posted December 6, 2001 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-sourceversion of the software at greenspun.com see: http://openacs.org <p>In particular, correct me if I am mistaken, but I'm under theimpression that: (a) one would need to dedicate a machine to the system, as itis not common to have servers running Aolserver. this increasescommercial hosting fees significantly. I suppose I could runit from a home server, but this raises reliability issues. (b) the software is relatively complex and would take a coupleof 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 asI 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 manyreaders), and the number of new messages per day is about 40. <p>Hosting from View Camera would require a significant step upof their web site. Their hosting fees would jump maybe twenty times(from the current website easily ran from a $10/monthweb 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_noble3 Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_oulman Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel_turner Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 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?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_m._herman1 Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_dvorak Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 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> ............................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dean_lastoria Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_calwell Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 Ditto Dean's response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_simmons1 Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.graemehird.com Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_santamaura Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_gibson1 Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 Firt, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_bonamo Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 Photo.net over yahoo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted_brownle Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_caluori Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 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, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_noble3 Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_kras Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy5 Posted December 8, 2001 Share Posted December 8, 2001 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian_tyler Posted December 8, 2001 Share Posted December 8, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altaf Posted December 8, 2001 Share Posted December 8, 2001 <!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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altaf Posted December 8, 2001 Share Posted December 8, 2001 <!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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now