9 Jul
2024
9 Jul
'24
7:25 a.m.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 4:48 PM Chris <chris(a)ardc.net> wrote:
Hi Dan,
Indeed; as I said I misinterpreted.
But I think this again illustrates why conversations like this are
best in the open: language is ambiguous, and _replacing_ a server can
mean different things depending on the context. For instance, if one
replaces an FTP server with an HTTP server, that's very different from
replacing one version of an HTTP server with another version of that
same server. These sorts of ambiguities can lead to the kind of
"telephone" games one sees in this very thread. On the other hand,
when we have these conversations in the open, things tend towards more
precision and misinterpretations can be corrected quickly.
In ticket 2787 you told me that the gateway
_server_ is being
deprecated;
I said we are hoping to deprecate the gateway server and then I went on to explain that
it would be replaced, not turned down. Not only is the server very old, but the code it is
running has bugs (as you pointed out). I would like to see it replaced with more modern
hardware running updated software that is easier to maintain and update.
However, this is not a priority at the moment, so very unlikely to be worked on in the
short to medium term.
This sounds like a rather ambitious project! I have high hopes this
will be done in the open.
Thanks,
- Dan C.
73,
Chris - G1FEF
I imagine I misinterpreted that to mean the
gateway
_service_. However, in light of what you wrote above, I can interpret
this one of two other ways: a) the physical server is being deprecated
and replaced, or b) the existing AMPRGW software is being replaced (or
there are plans to replace it). It would be good to have a solid
understanding of what the actual plan is.
This is an illustrative example of why, IMHO, it's better to have
technical discussions in the open.
- Dan C.