On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:11:50PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote:
> | On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 09:50:34AM +0800, Tito Mari Francis Esca?o wrote:
> | > On 9/1/06, Madars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > >...I do trust the packages that are on the CDs, but as
> | > >space is limited, you can't put all of them there.
> | > Does the OpenBSD project consider the use of DVD to distribute the
> | > package set on a per architecture basis?
> | > IMHO can be in line with the project's objective of distributing the
> | > OS (and packages?) in CD (or in this case, DVD) sets to support the
> | > project.
> | > On the buyer's side, it guarantees the reliability/authenticity of the
> | > packages; on the project's side, it's a new way of distributing OS
> | > support applications.
> |
> | Now *that* would suck. Most of my i386 boxes won't read a DVD, and I'm
> | fairly certain that getting a sparc to read a DVD isn't as easy as
> | making a i386 do the same.
>
> Actually, with a scsi DVD drive, you can just as easily have DVD
> access on amd64, mips, sparc, sparc64, alpha, macppc and probably
> others. And archs supporting usb, can probably access DVD drives just
> as easily. (I've had a DVD drive attached to i386, mips, sparc64 and
> alpha .. just works)
Yes, but tangling with expensive SCSI drives and SCSI itself just isn't
as easy as getting a E 30 drive and plopping an IDE cable into it.
> <not a request, just an opinion>
> I wouldn't mind (actually be in favour of; willing to pay more for)
> having a DVD in the CD-set with packages for multiple archs.
> </not a request, just an opinion>
Then again, I don't care either way. I do try to support the project
in various ways, but I've never felt the need to have a CD. FTP installs
are easy and fast from all the machines I've had to perform them from.
Joachim
