On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 15:10, William Hooper wrote:
> >
> > Which you trade off against fewer people using and testing because
> > of the inconvenience of having to download 800 megs of updates after each
> > install, or because long-fixed bugs in the release kernel prevent
> > installation at all. If Ubuntu is easier and faster to install, you will
> > lose all the testers.
>
> When did Ubuntu start doing releases faster than every six months?
They are out-of-sync with fedora. If you install today you'd
get a fairly old FC4 iso vs a pretty new Ubuntu. And with
Ubuntu you only install one CD and pull the rest from the
network. I assume this gets the current up to date version
the first time as opposed to having to download/install an
old version from a 4-iso set, then replace that with a
downloaded update.
> > and it would most likely result in less bandwidth usage since
> > the users would no longer have to download the iso and then do another
> > many hundred megs of update downloads for each machine installed.
>
> Bandwidth would increase because you will be syncing more bytes from the
> main server. Then you would get a group of people downloading every ISO
> set so they can have the newest set in case they need to install a new
> machine.
And every time they do install, it saves the bandwidth of doing those
updates. Plus, the isos make good bittorrent targets or rsync can
be used to cut bandwidth. There's not much you can do about yum. It
is even pre-configured so caching proxies don't help with multiple
machine updates.
> Or people that have installed in the past downloading a newer
> set when doing a reinstall.
Likewise a win at some number of installs or some size of
update set. Or when done with bittorrent or rsync.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
