Re: [Gnu-arch-users] New feature at the mirror + request for help

[Tom Lord]

    > From: "Parker, Ron" <address@hidden>

    > In some respects the supermirror is kind of like Savannah, SourceForge or
    > archive.org.  That said, does anyone on-list have a clue how SourceForge
    > actually pays for its processing, storage and bandwidth
    > expenses?  

    > I can't imagine that those banner ads that I always ignore cover
    > it.  [SourceForge, I assume you mean.]

See:

    http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040316/lnux10-q.html

At a _quick_ glance, it appears that SF is not reported separately
from other OSDN stuff.

That makes good sense.  Suppose we guess that ads on /. bring in the
most ad money:  even so, events on other properties like NewsForge and
SourceForge generate /. stories, helping to raise the value of /. ads
and generating more impressions when people click back and forth.

VA ain't exactly rolling in dough but, on the other hand, the on-line
part of their business appears to be a profitable aggregate and,
indeed, they're starting to report it separately from software sales.

In other words:  it's not a bad guess that SF is barely or not quite
self-sustaining, but regarded as part of the overall OSDN package,
it's just fine.

To answer your question about SF, they pay for its processing,
storage, bandwidth, and R&D expenses _maybe_ through just the ads but
more likely by being part of the larger OSDN.

    > Savannah, I assume, is funded out of FSF donations and
    > other monies.  

Savannah, as far as I know, is indeed sustained by contributions, a
mild majority of which (67%) come from individuals.


    > Perhaps archive.org is fully funded through their
    > donations as well, I don't know.  

www.archive.org:  Go to their home page and look in the lower left
hand corner for a box labled "Institutional Support".   Also take note
that their site is _not_ heavilly laden with fundraising solicitations.

Those guys are playing in a very different space from Savannah and
SourceForge: they're preserving cultural artifacts in a much, much
broader scope.  I presume from the mission and language on the
homepage that there is a heavy duty librarian component to their
management  -- they're addressing a very deep issue that every
non-trivial library in the world is trying to figure out:  how to cope
with on-line content.

Their Library of Congress affiliation and similar given them a lot of
credibility.  I suspect that they get by mostly on some pretty
respectable grants.  Even union-buster Carnegie saw fit to build
libraries (not necessarily buy books for them, but build libraries :-)
--- it seems like they've carved a niche where professional
philanthropy is comfortable operating and their biggest challenge is
to make sure they do a really good job to sustain and amplify their
reputation.

-t