I knew there was a good reason for this, though I couldn't put my finger on it. (And I hope this doesn't veer too far towards next steps, and too far away from the actual topic.)
It's the distinction between multimedia hosting and file hosting, isn't it.
Multimedia hosting is much more restrictive, because you are whitelisting individual file types, presumably also validating those file types (as much as is possible) and having more control over how they are displayed in line in entries, as well as then being able to post a finite list to the reader so that they can manage which of these types they actually want to see or don't want to see. It feels like it becomes nicely integrated into the site content and the site culture.
Filehosting is much more open and much less...inclusive. You can include a link to the file that's hosted, but that's about it. The difference in emphasis means that you also have to factor in people using Dreamwidth for offsite file storage which increases storage requirements and data transfer volumes. (Even with the 10Mb file size limit I've been known to use gmail for storing files temporarily or easily transporting them between computers)
The other issue is that you have no way to validate the content, within the context of viruses, malware, etc. I don't know how needful this is, but it probably means that particularly in a file hosting light you would need content warnings, which means asking "do you trust the user that you downloaded this file from". "Why, no, I don't. I mean, I trust them enough to tell them my most intimate fantasies about Jack Harkness, but I don't trust them not to send me malware" (Double negative, lose twelve coding points)
I was considering adding a request for archive file formats (tar, compress, gzip/zip, rar, etc) which gives you the best of both worlds, an easy ability to block that collective file type if you don't want to see it, and an easy backdoor into uploading any content file type, with the associated risk. I think in the end I'd prefer to see a more restrictive multimedia based model, even if it means the ongoing maintenance overhead of adding file types over time. (Well, it keeps the dw_suggestions community thriving)
no subject
It's the distinction between multimedia hosting and file hosting, isn't it.
Multimedia hosting is much more restrictive, because you are whitelisting individual file types, presumably also validating those file types (as much as is possible) and having more control over how they are displayed in line in entries, as well as then being able to post a finite list to the reader so that they can manage which of these types they actually want to see or don't want to see. It feels like it becomes nicely integrated into the site content and the site culture.
Filehosting is much more open and much less...inclusive. You can include a link to the file that's hosted, but that's about it. The difference in emphasis means that you also have to factor in people using Dreamwidth for offsite file storage which increases storage requirements and data transfer volumes. (Even with the 10Mb file size limit I've been known to use gmail for storing files temporarily or easily transporting them between computers)
The other issue is that you have no way to validate the content, within the context of viruses, malware, etc. I don't know how needful this is, but it probably means that particularly in a file hosting light you would need content warnings, which means asking "do you trust the user that you downloaded this file from". "Why, no, I don't. I mean, I trust them enough to tell them my most intimate fantasies about Jack Harkness, but I don't trust them not to send me malware" (Double negative, lose twelve coding points)
I was considering adding a request for archive file formats (tar, compress, gzip/zip, rar, etc) which gives you the best of both worlds, an easy ability to block that collective file type if you don't want to see it, and an easy backdoor into uploading any content file type, with the associated risk. I think in the end I'd prefer to see a more restrictive multimedia based model, even if it means the ongoing maintenance overhead of adding file types over time. (Well, it keeps the