[Mageia-discuss] Thank you - Merci - Danke - Gracias - Grazie - Obrigado - спасибо

Marc Paré marc at marcpare.com
Wed Sep 22 22:54:31 CEST 2010


Le 2010-09-22 16:04, Michael Scherer a écrit :
> Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 à 12:11 -0400, Marc Paré a écrit :
>> Le 2010-09-22 10:41, Michael Scherer a écrit :
>>> Le mardi 21 septembre 2010 à 16:53 -0400, Marc Paré a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Would it make sense to also have a section for "mageia" domain owners to
>>>> track domain owners who are willing to cooperate? You will eventually
>>>> have to do this anyway. I would also consider this also a type of offer
>>>> of cooperation and help.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think we should not collect all domain names to give them
>>> to the association :
>>
>> The offer was to pass on the domain if the Mageia project wanted to have
>> it. It adds flexibility
>>
>>>
>>> 1) each domain name will need admin time. Either to manage ( ie, set up
>>> vhost, setup the zone, add a entry to the zone etc ), or to renew. While
>>> renewing 1 domain name every year is easy, renewing 10 or 20 on 10 to 20
>>> different resellers, for different prices and so on will be quite
>>> annoying.
>>
>> When passing off a domain, the reseller is transferred. You then
>> consolidate all under on reseller. I do this all the time.
>
> Well, depending on the domain, I am not sure that all of them can be
> transferred everywhere.
>
> For example, .ie is restricted as Colin Guthrie explained to me for the
> 10 years of Mandriva. And it seems that you cannot buy .ie at gandi.net,
> which is the reseller we have used.
>
> So I do not know if they can manage every type of TLD.

If you register with a larger reseller, they will have offices in most 
countries to get around this. They then offer you an account that 
consolidates all domains. The contact information is then coordinated 
from this account.

>
>>>
>>> 2) this will also generate work for people in charge of comptability,
>>> and we know that people doing the work of a CFO are a scarce ressources
>>> ( CFO may not be the proper word, but I didn't found better ).
>>
>> You set a pointer to the main site and there is no need to use the other
>> domain names if you do not wish.
>
> I mean administrative work, like taking care of the bill, reporting them
> on the financial report, etc.
>
> I never managed a association as a treasurer, so I do not know how much
> paperwork is really required, or if this is really annoying, but all the
> one that I know are always already overworked, so I am sure that less
> work is better.
>

It is really not that much of a burden. You can coordinate the billing 
periods with your reseller. They will be more than happy to help you 
with this.

>
>>>
>>> If we use for http :
>>>
>>> 4) too much domain will be a pain from a ssl point of view. If we start
>>> to need ssl for a site, and there is 10 Vhost for it, we will just have
>>> 10 time the work to renew certificates.
>>
>> Not applicable if you redirect the domains. You would then only have to
>> establish certificates for those domains that you intend to use.
>
> I beg to differ.
>
> For a http redirect, this will require first to connect using https then
> send the redirect at http level, so a valid certificate is needed before
> the redirect.
>
> If you speak of a "dns redirect", you can either use a A record, in
> which case the issue would still be valid since browser will ask for the
> certificate of the first domain name, not the redirected one. Or you can
> use a CNAME record, in which case, the issue is the same.
>
> Maybe I forgot something or overlooked it however, but I am quite
> confident of this. And since this will be different TLDs, you cannot use
> a wildcard certificate.
>
> Of course, a solution would be to basically use the same certificate
> everywhere and let warnings appear, this is not a big issue.

Your reseller and/or hosting service would most likely help you out with 
this as well.

>
>
>>>
>>> 5) too much domain will also requires more work for simple http, since
>>> we will have lots of them.
>>
>> Not applicable if you set a pointer. This will also depend on the amount
>> of website developers help who have signed up.
>
> Well, it mostly depend on the number of vhost needed. For exemple, if we
> want to have blog.example.fr redirect to blog.example.org, we need to
> create a vhost with the redirection. Te issue can be alleviated by using
> some mod_rewrite tricks.
>
> But yes, for the case you gave of simple http redirect, this is not
> tricky to handle.
>
> But it depend on what will be needed. Worst case would be to have
> conditional vhost for each domain ( like only have a blog on some
> subdomain and not others ).

The hosting service I use give you unlimited redirects and domain 
parking. -- 123ehost.com. It works well and quite painless. These are 
set up in minutes.

>
>>>
>>> 6) too much different url will just mean more confusion. I may also fear
>>> this could be seen by major search engine as unethic SEO, and thus be
>>> punished ( since link farm is a commonly used technic to try to hijack
>>> some keywords ). But Google, Yahoo and Bing systems are closed source,
>>> so I do not know.
>>
>> This is not unethic as all business on the internet do this as common
>> practice. Try to type in URL's for any major corporation, or Yahoo!,
>> Google, Bing etc.
>
> Well, yahoo.fr and yahoo.com do not give the same server, and there is
> some high level redirection. So does Dell ( 2 differents sites ), Apple
> ( not the same server, not the same page, redirection to .com with a
> url ), Microsoft ( does like Apple ), Renault ( not the same ip, some
> wierd redirection ), Peugeot.
>
> Ie, among the test i did, only Google and Bind do have the same page
> across various urls.
>
> So my own understanding is that they appear to be different entities to
> most search engines.

Due to the load on their services, as well as different national 
conditions put on these companies (RIM and problems with their 
BlackBerry servers in UAE and India etc is a good example), to them, it 
makes sense to have separate servers. However, Mageia would not suffer 
at the outset from such a load and if it did, you could then make 
allowances for this.

>
>>>
>>> If we use for mail :
>>>
>>> 7) too much domain will simply mean more spam. If we offer multiple
>>> email ( like "example at mageia.org, and .de, and .fr and .cn, and so on ),
>>> email will simply appear in more list, and therefore be more spammed.
>>
>> Domains do not have to be activated for mail. If a domain is not
>> activated for mail service then the mail bounces back to the sender.
>> This is done all of the time.
>
> Well, that why I have said "if we use it for mail".
>
> And I see at least 1 person using the domain name he bought and offered
> us to use ( see Tomáš Kindl on
> http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=ressources ).
>

This is easily set up. Mageia devs and core groups (once formally 
established) are more than welcome to have a "____ at mageia.ca mail 
account if they want one. I will set that up for them along with POP, 
SMTP and Webmail.

>>>
>>> 9) and of course, too much domain name, like for websites will mean more
>>> confusion.
>>
>> It means less confusion. mageia.org will lead to main site; mageia.ca
>> does lead to main site; magiea.nl would lead to main site; mageia.net
>> would lead to main site; mageia.info would lead to main site ... How
>> would this be confusing?
>
> I was not clear, I was speaking of mail address ( if we use them ).
> And so this would bring confusion because people often rely on the mail
> to see if someone is a official developer or not. Hence, if we use the
> domain for mail, people will use them to post on ml, I assume people
> will use them.
>
> Of course, as you said, we can also decide to not use it.
>
>> By doing business the way that you advocate, you actually lower the
>> fidelity that one would assume of a serious group.
>
> We are not creating a business, but a free software project, IIRC. So
> some concepts may not be applicable directly. And I think that part of
> the fidelity would be earned with local user group with their own
> identity and presence, and likely their own choices, independances and
> domain names.

If you are looking for foundation grants or government grants, they will 
want to see a business model. They will not lend money to Mageia on 
loose terms. Would you? The core group will have no choice but to adopt 
a business plan if they really want the project to reach their 
advertised goals. Ask any arts group that has applied for grants.

>
>>>
>>> So
>>>
>>> 10) by registering every possible variation, we are acting selfishly
>>> toward others netizens.
>>
>> You have already covered these points up above with #9. #10 is not a new
>> point.
>
> No, 10 is for the paragraph about "lack of good domain name on the
> internet" before, based on the problem about finding a name, and about
> being nice with other people who may use the name in unrelated way.
>
>>>
>>> The only answer I got was about security. But seriously, security of
>>> what ? Protecting from people doing phishing ? Bank already fail at
>>> this, and you think we can ?
>>
>> Who mentioned security? This is all about flexibility.
>
> First time I mentioned the issue 2 days ago. But I think this was on
> irc, since I cannot find anything in the mailling list archives :/

No worry there, there are already speculators who have gobbled up the 
"Mageia" domain permutations that they think will stick, hoping that the 
Mageia project will bring great success. This, hoping to cash out later 
on. I even sent a note out to Anne on Sunday night letting her know that 
the sites were being bought out at a feverish pace.

This is why I think that a further name change later on may be in the 
cards if we find that the "Mageia" domain situation is untenable.
>
> ( if someone can confirm that I didn't dream... )
>




More information about the Mageia-discuss mailing list