> On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 10:06:51AM -0400, Andrew Conkling wrote: >> On 10/28/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > With the exception of one package improperly installed the last time >> I tried it; the ftp install will get you the very latest packages >> without having to install the older ones from the cd you are using. >> The cd can be quite old to do this. >> >> I'm with Georg that a regular CD release isn't all that necessary and >> that a task-based roadmap would work better. (And in that vein, I >> think that's Judd and the gang work, so I *think* what you'd be asking >> for then is that they tell us what they're thinking. :) >> >> However, Bob, just wanted to make sure that you understand that >> Bozhidar (if no one else) is saying that if your network connection is >> slow (or non-existent), the FTP install is not a very viable option. >> I'm not sure how many people these days are using such a connection, >> or whether it's important for Arch to accommodate them, but I bet it's >> probably more than I think. >> > > I wholeheartedly beg to differ. So let's get this straight, you're > trying to tell me that someone with a SLOW connection would rather > download hundreds upon hundreds of packages on CDs, the majority of > which he'll never use, rather than spending ONLY the time to download > ONLY the packages he will use, which amounts to a lot less. > > You don't make sense. > > -S
Hey Simo and the gang; Thanks for that observation Simo....and yes you are right on. It makes having both a base cd and the floppy sets a good idea. Further possibly the best solution for these folks is a small-ish ftp only install image in cd-iso format for downloading. This would probably be less than a 20 meg download, and (along with the floppy install set) solve this need. Thanks again for the input. Very best regards; Bob Finch _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
