On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 4:48 PM Chris chris@ardc.net wrote:
Hi Dan,
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.
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.
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.