On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, David Boyes wrote: > > When the distributor would not use proprietary tools for their > > maintenance, it would > > be trivial for someone else to grab their distribution and sell > > maintenance on top of it > > using the distributor's tools like YOU or up2date. I want to believe > > such issues is > > also why the re-packaging of SuSE rpm's like k_deflt is so cumbersome. > > :grumpy id=nocoffee. > > So we end up with half a dozen different maintenance strategies and tools > based on making it as hard as possible to get consistency between multiple > distributions. Boy, that's a step forward. Didn't we solve this problem a > few decades ago... > > :egrumpy. > > Probably all too right. > > It still seems dumb not to use methods that don't depend on a central > source, though. Our friends at Microsoft seemed to have had that amply > demonstrated to them recently. The current approach also doesn't scale very > well -- since it's not clear if/when you can set up local repositories with
Aye. I just had the experience of running up2date for a client. Data came in at a good steady 5K bytes/sec or so through a 512K/128K ADSL connexion. And, there were several disconnexions;-(( I get about ten times that rate downloading stuff for Debian. -- Cheers John. Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb Copyright John Summerfield. Reproduction prohibited.
