whoa hang on, let me see if I got this right client has multiple ubuntu machines to update each machine updates seperately over internet and kills bw bill suggestion: is there a better way?
Wouldnt it be easier for there to be a gateway which downloads a repo if requested and then just caches it? Regards, On 27/07/07, Ian Pascoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been trying to put some flesh around Alan's idea, not that easy with > three daughters constantly after your attention but here goes anyway. > > The web side of the house is fairly run of the mill stuff, so that's been > pushed to one side. Only thought is to keep any interfaces clean and > simple. > > Next, why would anyone want it? I think the main areas would be: > > * Unable to get access regularly to a high speed Internet connection > * unable to get access outside of an Intranet > * no Internet connection at all > > Additionally, there is also the small business, or school, that don't want > their bandwidth gobbled up by machines on the network each individually > updating themselves. I understand that in an ideal world the network would > be configured so that the updates are downloaded once and broadcasted to > each machine on the network as it connects, but this only really happens in > medium to large organisations, and those smaller ones that have SysAdmins > who can think outside the box (in my experience that is). > > As for the HDDs themselves, 40 or maybe 50 Gb, and ideally a compact design > with a chip set that we know functions well with Ubuntu / Linux. From this > you'll realise I'm looking at each HDD having one architect for one release > cycle on it. My only question is whether a USB v2.0 or v1.1 or mixture; > probably v2 only for availability reasons and data transfer speeds. > > Next is the physical side of things. As Alan says you need a central server > with about 400 - 500 Gb on it with the ability to handle updating at least 2 > HDDs at a time. I don't think more is needed as the uptake in the UK would > be fairly minimal but at least the service is there. The ideal locations > would be in developing countries. So the question here is whether to look > at sending items from the UK, getting local offices set up through the local > or nearby Loco teams, or just limit ourselves to the UK and Eire. > > Next is the physical location of the business. Well that actually doesn't > matter that much; in fact it could be quite easily run out of the proverbial > spare bedroom. > > This of course also leads onto the question of how you actually ship them > out to the client and get them back again. I realise that the HDDs are > designed to be portable but you still would probably need to have some > specialised packing to protect them whilst in transit that could be reused > to send it back to the "spare bedroom". > > Lastly, is how do we let people know that the service exists? Ideally, it'd > be from the official Ubuntu sites, and also from those sites linked to > Ubuntu and Linux. > > So that's my thoughts on the actual project, but what about the competition? > As Alan said there are people already out there who are doing this using > optical media. This is fine and a relatively cheap approach, as it only > costs the price of a couple of DVDs and the P & P; no worries about returns > or missing / broken HDDs. However, extrapolating the new legislation > surrounding recycling electrical items, I wonder how long it will be before > one off hit DVD / CDs will have to be green as well. > > Other questions which spring to mind are: > > * client gets their HDD, how do they pursuade apte-get or whichever to use > that repo? > * finances > * licencing > * sole tradeing or LLP for the business > * binaries / source code or both > * full time operation or hobby status? > > I think that this kind of goes hand in glove with the Marketing threads. > > What we really need is some well known brand to go Ubuntu and jump on the > back of that publicity. Or indeed, decide as a community what area we're > going to tackle first and get cracking there instead of aiming at the > elusive general public. > > E > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Pope > Sent: 26 July 2007 14:36 > To: British Ubuntu Talk > Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] ubuntu-uk Digest, Vol 27, Issue 47 > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 12:16:37PM +0100, Pete Stean wrote: > > Hmm, that hard disc idea sounds good in principal, but then you've got > > someone who is in the position of suddenly having to worry about DOA > > products etc etc - a complete headache waiting to happen :\ > > Not that I'm nay-saying or anything, but in reality it sounds a bit like > > hard work to me > > > > Indeed it does :) > > There are already people who sell a copies of the repo on DVD/CD, but I > don't know how popular those products are. > > Hard disks would be potentially harder work in some ways, but easier in > others. It's very easy to have a cron job that regularly runs apt-mirror to > keep the "master" copy up to date, and just rsync the master over to a new > disk as/when it is needed to replenish stock or update it prior to sale. > > Dealing with multiple optical media for each customer also has ups and > downs. If you were to take a copy of the binary packages only then it would > fit on 3 dual layer DVDs, or 5 single layer ones. If you went for the whole > repo (for one release) - including source packages as well as binary, then > it would fit on 5 dual layer DVDs, or 9 single layer ones. These assume > capacities of 7.7GiB for a DL and 4GiB for a SL. > > The above figures were thrown together based on a full repo size of > 35GiB (for one architecture, one release - e.g. Feisty i386 full repo is > 33.1GiB, Dapper sparc full repo is 30.1GiB), and a binary only repo of about > 17GiB (they all differ but that's about the max). > > Clearly if you wanted to fully load up a hard disk this is something that > would be impractical on DVD. For example after Gutsy releases there would be > 3 supported releases that you'd probably ship - Dapper (LTS), Feisty and > Gutsy. Four (i386, AMD64, powerpc and sparc) architectures makes for a full > repo size of 392GiB! - Binary only would be around 189GiB. It soon mounts > up, especially if you go multi arch. > > Then there's the possibility of the other architectures like the PS3, > however you might argue that someone who has a PS3 likely has broadband? > > Cheers, > Al. > > -- > [email protected] > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/ > > > > -- > [email protected] > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/ > -- Matthew G Larsen > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +44(0)7739 785 249 -- [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
