SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
NCommander is publishing a Meta story today: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=22/11/20/0342250 It will be published on the front page with all of the restrictions that apply to such stories and discussions.
In it NCommander explains how he sees the future of the site developing with regards to software, hardware and administration. Some of those views are different now from the views that many of us held in 2014. The requirement for some of our servers is no longer justified, and there are better technologies available for achieving what we are trying to do thus also reducing our running costs. The administration of the site is placing an increasing burden on the relatively few administrators that remain in the support team. Society has also changed. Some discussion has been replaced by intimidation and threats. It is much more polarised than it was in 2014. In many ways this is the same as for numerous other web sites. However, the abuse and toxic atmosphere created by a small number of Anonymous Cowards is unacceptable and must be reversed if the site is to survive. The responsibility for some of the problems that we are experiencing, and the resulting actions that we have had to take, is placed entirely at their feet.
A few months ago the majority of the community opted - albeit very reluctantly - to remove AC posts from the front pages of the site. This action has successfully removed the vast majority of the abuse from our discussions. We are seeing a slow increase in the number of comments week-on-week and the signal-to-noise ratio is now much higher. It is only right that we also reconsider the implications of that change.
This journal entry is to enable anyone who wishes to remain anonymous to express their views. I promise that I will read it and will ensure that genuine views are considered when the community decides which path it wishes to follow. I cannot make any assurances that other members of the site's administration will read it - although I expect that at least some will. If you have an account then I strongly encourage you to leave your views under NCommander's Meta story and not here.
I further my promise that I will try to represent your views as honestly and fairly as I can.
If you abuse this journal then you are simply giving more support to the alternative options that might be considered than you are to the status quo. I encourage you to expresses sensible, logical and considered views but should you decide that abuse is what you prefer then this journal entry can simply be removed. You are being given an opportunity - do not throw it away.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2022, @09:29AM
1. I absolutely agree on getting rid of MySQL NDB cluster. Your setup (if you left it the way it was setup the last time you all discussed it) is not set up for high availability and is actually worse than a standard setup at this point in a number of measures.
2. You mention FastCGI and getting rid of Apache completely. I based on that, you probably mean using FastCGI from the nginx front(s). That change will probably end up having some interesting effects on the rehash instances running. I would definitely try that on the dev server before putting anything like that on the actual website.
3. Speaking of the the dev server. I again implore you and the admins to turn on code coverage for rehash on the dev server. I don't think you all have an accurate picture of what is going on there and you seem like you'll be much more accepting of that idea for a number of reasons.
4. Definitely try upgrading mod_perl first before doing an FCGI transition. I probably don't need to tell you how to do that, but I would definitely have some coverage information and your mod_perl CHANGES ready!
5. Love the Docker or other container plan and walling off with a proper LSM. Even just the containerization is great because it should ease scaling if this place takes off or for those curious in the future who want to play around.
6. At this point, it isn't a surprise that the no-AC decision will stick. It saddens me in a way and I know it has already driven off a number of SME contributors to this site. We already laugh at some of the incorrect information that has sailed by unchallenged and it soured me (and probably us) from contributing where such comments are allowed. I get why the decision is made and how we got here, but it is what it is.
7. I don't know how well your IP ban idea will work. IP addresses are disposable and any properly motivated and armed spammer can have near endless numbers of IPs to evade even those bans.
8. In all honesty, I don't know if this site even has the resources to fend of the truly motivated and armed attacker. Aristicratus and his claimants seems to be doing so more for the lulz than anything and doesn't really seem to be the best armed. Otherwise, this site would have been toast a long time ago given that it was and is rife with vulnerabilities.
9. Deleting comments is fine enough. It is your site and I get some things (e.g. CSAM) should be banished from the Internet. The only real problem I have is there is no real accountability on them. This place has always tried to maintain some semblance of transparency, but there really seems to be none in this area. There is no public list of actions taken, spam mods dealt, comments deleted, etc. Who is watching the watchers is always a valid question, especially when they claim the need for more obtrusive powers.
10. I also find such talk a bit ironic given that the journal pages are full of literal spam of many types that does nothing but hurt the reputation of this site, both technically and socially, and that there has been repeated refusals to do anything about that.
11. I may trust your intentions while questioning your underlying motivation, but the ride has been interesting so far.