Answer from AlvinSummary Shown |
![]() |
![]() |
|
3.1![]() |
They shouldn't promote any particular practice. The heterogeneity of approaches is one of the strengths of the way things are done without these infrastructure sites. The value of heterogeneity, differences as assets Nothing should be 'promoted'. |
![]() |
|
4.1![]() |
Accessibility (is the site well designed and easy to navigate? Does is respond quickly?) Ease of use, high usability Fast access, responsive (high bandwidth and power server) Well designed site structure for navigation |
4.2![]() |
Reliability. (is the machine going to get broken into? Are the CVS servers going to go down? Do they do regular backups?) Reliable High security |
4.3![]() |
Cost. (does the site have a monthly fee? Are there lots of banner ads?) Low Cost or Free |
4.4![]() |
Available tools Convenience - provides resources are difficult for an individual to maintain (e.g. web site) Many tools are provided |
![]() |
|
5.1![]() |
Lack of technical documentation on how to set up programs needed to use services. (Like encrypted CVS, or CVS in general) Lack of documentation and/or information or poor quality documentation and/or information so that users could not work out how to use the site |
5.2![]() |
Worry that the entity controlling the IFHOSP may do something negative with the project or that they may have some rights to the project by nature of the fact that it is hosted with them. Not trusting the host of the IFHOSP Not control the content and the development direction of the IFHOSP Intellectual property issues - the host of the IFHOSP may impose some rights to the projects hosted |
5.3![]() |
Worry about international laws, if you're writing an encryption package, it matters where the IFHOSP is located as to whether or not you would want to use it due to export laws, etc. Legal issues on software distribution |
5.4![]() |
Lack of reliability Unreliable |
5.5![]() |
Lack of features that can be had hosting a project on a locally controlled machine Not providing the tools or the features needed Not having enough control over the IFHOSP comparing with a local machine |
![]() |
|
6.1![]() |
Easy coordination - there is a central point from which everything is done Centralised location for project management |
6.2![]() |
If a given IFHOSP hosts many projects, users of various software don't have to go to 10 different places to get their software, and everything is presented consistently Centralised location to find Free Software/Open Source Software Uniform toolset with uniform interface for users |
![]() |
|
7.1![]() |
No Comment. |
![]() |
|
8.1![]() |
No Comment. |
![]() |
|
9.1![]() |
No Comment. |
![]() |
|
10.1![]() |
No Comment. |
![]() |
|
11.1![]() |
No Comment. |
![]() |
|
12.1![]() |
Usage agreements - the IFHOSP must be very careful in terms of what they are and aren't allowed to do with the code on their site. Sites that have statements such as "hosting your project here grants the site owners a nonexclusive, royalty free perpetual license to use the software" are not acceptable. IFHOSP site should be careful on the usage agreements with users and provide them with enough freedom |