Hosting Project Demo's on OSDev.org

[AJ]

Topic split from -> here <-.

[Love4Boobies]

Maybe it'd be cool to implement this applet on OSDev.org ?

[earlz]

Maybe it'd be cool to implement this applet on OSDev.org ?

Maybe if it was put in the OS Project List on the Wiki as part of the template. like a "Click here to run OS in Java Emulator" which would of course be an opt-in thing per OS

[NickJohnson]

Yeah, but really, how easy do you think it would be to reliably have all of those projects available to test? Either you would store them all on the site (impossible due to size) or keep the links updated (impossible due to laziness). We could, however, put it up in a way that it could read boot disks from anywhere on the web, and have the user type in the URL by hand; maybe some people would put their own links up.

[earlz]

Yeah, but really, how easy do you think it would be to reliably have all of those projects available to test? Either you would store them all on the site (impossible due to size) or keep the links updated (impossible due to laziness). We could, however, put it up in a way that it could read boot disks from anywhere on the web, and have the user type in the URL by hand; maybe some people would put their own links up.

Yes that's what I was intending.. I think hosting of all that on the OSDev website wouldn't be good and is out of the scope of the website. Just rather having it an option in the wiki template to where you can add one in a standardized place.

[AndrewAPrice]

You could add a live demo icon to the Wiki template, but you'll be responsible for hosting it yourself.

[Combuster]

I don't really see that much problems with public hosting - if you'd limit the on-site submissions to 1.4M floppy images, and you compress them on storage, you don't need that much for the average user. We could limit it further to one floppy image per account that has at least one star. Which would with an average compression of 70% (most disk space is wasted anyway) result in 483 * 1.4 * 0.3 = 184MB. Which is something we could bother Chase with.

[Kevin]

I don't think I could present many exciting things on a floppy image. It's just too small for some OSes (probably some of the more interesting ones).

[AJ]

Hi,

Combuster's point taken on board, but I would rather see people hosting their own images for flexibility and possibly legal reasons (who is responsible if someone uploads an image conataining proprietary software?).

Is there a way of getting MediaWiki to hide broken links automagically? If so, that could get around the problem of removing stale OS's.

Cheers,
Adam

[Combuster]

Is there a way of getting MediaWiki to hide broken links automagically?

Bots!

[NickJohnson]

... legal reasons (who is responsible if someone uploads an image conataining proprietary software?).

Could we have some sort of waiver that transfers liability to the uploader if they upload images with proprietary software? I don't know any lawyers though.

[monkeykoder]

IANAL but if I'm not mistaken the owner of the server wouldn't be held liable if they took appropriate action when notified.

[Combuster]

... legal reasons (who is responsible if someone uploads an image conataining proprietary software?).

Could we have some sort of waiver that transfers liability to the uploader if they upload images with proprietary software? I don't know any lawyers though.

Considering that the same people can upload illegal content to the forum or wiki, and we don't close down the forum nor wiki because someone might post objectionable content and get the staff sued, wouldn't that be a bit hypocritical?
In essence, both the forum and wiki already impose an agreement on its users. I think the more essential problem is how to check for and control rogue users.