Hmmm... sorry, I rejected this message by accident (mail problems). I'm quoting it below entirely and replying to it.
On Tuesday 08 June 2004 23:55, you wrote: > On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 06:50:44PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > Can't we limit them both? Or do you mean that despite being limited one > > of the protocols will starve the others. > > Yes. I'd like that unified. > Well, it would be even more desirable that we wouldn't have to serve data at all. ;-) But that's the entire purpose of the server. So I think FTP server is something that the users would like and we should supply it to them. If it is of any conselation, we can give a large limit to HTTP, and a relatively smaller one to FTP. Of course, a problem can be those fscking download managers which open more than one connection simultaenously. (as if it would make an ADSL download faster) > > > > 1. mod_dav is only available for Apache 2.0.x. Debian Stable ships > > > > with Apache > > > > > > No. mod_dav is integrated into Apache 2.0, but _is_ available for 1.3 > > > as a separate package. > > > > Do you mean: > > > > http://www.webdav.org/mod_dav/ > > Yes. > Ah, OK. > > It has not been updated since June 13, 2000. I'm not saying it isn't good > > or functional, just that it's suspicious that it hasn't changed in quite > > a while. > > There's a standard. A well-defined one. Implementing it for a file > system backend is not very hard, especially when you use a ready-made > XML parser. The standard doesn't change. The implementation remains > static. > Sounds fair. > > BTW, doesn't mod_dav require a separate module as the back-end for > > actually managing the files, or is this an Apache 2.0-only policy? > > I don't think there's such a separation in the 1.3 module. That's > probably why Subversion can't use it. > It is possible this is because of the Apache 1.3.x limitations. (which were resolved in Apache 2.0.x) > > > Windows, since Win98/2K, ship with "Web Folders", which's a client to > > > access WebDAV sites, integrated into the shell. > > > > By "shell" do you mean the command prompt or the Windows Explorer? > > Windows Explorer, or any Open File dialog (try it from Notepad). > In Internet Explorer, do File | Open..., enter the URL and check "Open > as Web Folder". > OK. > > Can you point to a WebDAV-based URL so I can test if my KDE 3.2.0 (mdk) > > installation supports it? I don't think I ever encountered this behaviour > > for anything except FTP sites. > > webdav://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/ > (yes, the magic happens when you replace http:// with webdav://) > <<< An error occurred while loading webdav://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/: The file or folder webdav://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/ does not exist. >>> Besides, I'd never would have guessed that that's what I need to do. And neither would most other people who don't RTFM or STFW. > > Well, some people find it useful. And a few days ago another mail was > > sent, this time to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] asking where the FTP server > > is. > > Say "we don't provide one, use HTTP instead" :) > That's not what I said. I said we don't have one set up yet, and that's there is a contrevarsy in the mailing list about whether to set up one. I also referred them to this thread's URL in mail-archive.com. > > > I'm talking about a rsync in standalone daemon opening a port, not > > > about using rsync as a "better scp" over ssh. > > > > Right. I was just saying it was already installed, so we might as well > > enable its service. > > rsync daemon is good when we're serving as a sync-source for lower-tier > mirrors. I wouldn't recommend *any* mirror, no matter how lame, to sync > from us :) For all other uses, regular protocols are adequate. Well, that's not accurate. What if one download produced an invalid copy of the data? (that doesn't match the md5sum) The fastest way to fix it without re-downloading anything is to rsync from an rsync daemon. He can also try doing it from a fast mirror abroad, but it would require less thought and experimentation to use ours. Not many people are aware of this possibility, but power users are. I'm not suggesting we do have an rsync daemon, just that it is in fact useful. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://shlomif.il.eu.org/ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.]
