On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 05:32:19PM -0400, Ivan Krstic wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
[...]
Explaining to you why that is is such a large
task that I almost
despair of attempting it. But, short version: that's like saying "I'd
like to put a 900 horse Indy engine in my mini-pickup, because I think
I could haul a bigger trailer that way".
Nonsense. As far as the raw amount of data goes, even the English
Wikipedia can be handled by entry-level server hardware. What kills
Wikipedia is the volume of requests, and there's no reason to believe
that the OP will get even a fraction of Wikipedia's; there's nothing
inherently wrong with his idea.
Yeah, but the *traffic* is part of the reason why the 'pedia is
*useful*; it's Metcalfe's Law incarnate. Pinching it off, and
particularly to be "just another feature" on some other website...?
Well, why bother?
Mark Jaroski wrote:
That's almost a better comparison with the
nearly half a
million article WP database.
The English Wikipedia alone has close to 1.1 million articles.
I guess at that scale, it doesn't matter as much if that's
only the main namespace.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?