Search Engine on

Máirín Duffy duffy at
Fri Jul 23 14:24:07 UTC 2010

On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 18:41 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I liked one of the examples we talked about right at the end of that
> conversation with  We considered as a backup
> solution.  This was something that was pretty clearly easy for us to
> duplicate if we wanted to but for cost reasons or whatever we could have
> just paid for the storage.
> Now, the api for rsync is pretty well documented, there are several
> implementations.  But we had no promises that was even running a
> FOSS version of rsync, nor what OS they may have been running, etc.  By
> that definition our current policy would have disallowed us from using
> but I don't think it should have.  So the policy will have to be
> altered a bit in that respect.
> At the same time, Google's search API is pretty well open.  It just uses
> an http GET url and you get your results.  However, it does seem google's
> actual search is closed.  So we certainly couldn't provide our own google
> if we wanted (ignoring content licensing and size for now).
> So now the trick is to try to find wording that describes what Jef said
> above.  We don't want to be locked into a vendor and we do want to be able
> to duplicate an external service on our own if the service goes away.

I kind of feel using non-open source code in any capacity is really bad,
even if it has an open API, even if it is running on Linux, even if it's
something we could practically duplicate should it disappear.
*Especially* when there are open source alternatives (I can understand
somewhat if there aren't.)

E.g. for search, would it be feasible to use Apache Solr rather than
Google? I've seen a few success stories of sites using it. Here's an
example (love the domain name o_O) of a guy who set up a shared Solr
server on linode for 15 different websites and is very happy with it:


More information about the advisory-board mailing list