On Monday, December 17, 2018 12:57:56 PM EST Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The reason is that discourse and other many other tools people
'want'
are not light weight 'oh just throw a server up and have your thing in
2 minutes and never look at it again'. They are tools which you need a
lot of infrastructure set up and running, and a strong commitment of
time and effort to keep running. Once you set it up beyond the base
example version every website says you can do, you find that more and
more staff and time are devoted to keeping it going.. just like the
Fedora Build System and all its related tools take up a lot of time,
effort, and money. When you try to run these in parallel or in 'spare
time' you end up with the main 'product' slowing down, and the others
ones getting stretched out because the amount of time you can put
towards it eats into the main product.
So it becomes very compelling to let a company that is dedicated to
running the complex tool to do so.
I'm sorry, but as a sysadmin, especially with experience un-dockerizing
Discourse, I just can't take that at face value. Discourse, though a pain to
update, is not really that hard to host. Maybe an hour of effort a week, max,
if you're doing it entirely manually. Sure, complexity increases when you add
plugins, but not significantly.
I just hope we're not paying for that thing, though we probably are.
--
John M. Harris, Jr. <johnmh(a)splentity.com>
Splentity
https://splentity.com/