WebSite Information > Comments, Suggestions & Questions

Hobbes (Files) Reoganization

(1/16) > >>

Martin Iturbide:
Hi

I still have the "itchiness" to reorganize some files in hobbes, and even also some other places like OS2site.
But I hold back, some people may not like reorganizing and renaming of the files, some other may tell me "do not bother on that", and it is also a huge task.

Also there have been no reply from the hobbes administrator on my offer to help and have a quicker access to modify file descriptions of the database and been able to move files to the corresponding directory.

And also, it is big job to try organize all the OS/2 software available. From one side I think it is good to keep all the versions of the software, but from the other side I understand that some sites (like hobbes) should only have the latest version (with the exception of drivers). Times has change and storage space is not problem for OS/2 programs like it was on the past. (like my crazy OHFOWG and the OS2World Github (7GB) )

My concern with OS/2 preservation had been growing when I saw how old software disappears from the internet (some can not be found even on the waybackmachine). I don't want to delete anything. I hopefully will like to backup the old things with the old names in different archive.org items and later focus in the working apps, latest versions and renaming and moving the files.

What do you think?

- Should I try to make my own public file repository? If I try that I will need help, I don't want more server administration with that.
- Should I keep trying to improve hobbes order in this slow way of uploading files with .txt template file?
- Should I take care that "itchiness" with some other thing and forget this thing?

Ian, (he runs the os2site), your opinion is important for me. 

I also want to do something collaborative with the help of several people since it is a big task.

Regards

Andreas Schnellbacher:
About Hobbes: The long description is not correctly displayed in the current HTML interface. It's correct when being downloaded as file per FTP. Second, upload requires passive FTP and active FTP is not rejected. It would just create 0 B files.

The uploader decides himself which prior versions are deleted on archiving (moving it to the destination) by the 'Replaces' entry.

(I always keep main versions and for others I delete the prior ones. One reason is that I want to ensure that people always use the newest version. If something important doesn't work, I'll upload a new version as soon as possible. Another one is to keep the repository clean. The full list of official versions can be accessed on netlabs.org, where I have have more options with the web page to direct people to the latest version.)

Ian seems to keep old versions on his site (where he mirrors Hobbes plus gathers files from other sources, also those that wouldn't be available elsewhere).

I don't like the Hobbes situation either. It's just too unsafe to rely on a single server. I'm glad that Ian's server exists and am not sure if we need another mirror.

Martin Iturbide:

--- Quote from: Andreas Schnellbacher on May 14, 2021, 06:57:22 pm ---I don't like the Hobbes situation either. It's just to unsafe to rely on a single server. I'm glad that Ian's server exists and am not sure if we need another mirror.

--- End quote ---

I agree on not rely on a single server. I encourage to backup everything on the Internet Archive just in case.

Neil Waldhauer:
Martin, I would welcome an alternate archive of OS/2 programs. I think it's an interesting bit of history. A well laid out archive would be a legacy of a legacy operating system. I think you are a good person to do it because you have studied archiving OS/2 material for years.

Martin Iturbide:
Hi

Just in case, this weekend, I will take a full backup of hobbes and put it on Archive.org just to leave it archived. I guess nobody will get mad for it.

Regards

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version