Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
#1. Leaking a release builds enthusiasm among hobbyists (as Fedora community should be).
#2. It helps create publicity.
Just a suggestion. Tnx.
Kip Thomas wrote:
Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
Ok, I will start by posting the most important part: the SHA1SUM to be sure you have downloaded the real thing.
Interesting to note the timestamp of the gpg signature; more than two days ago.
gpg: Signature made Sat 03 Nov 2007 12:14:43 AM CET using DSA key ID 4F2A6FD2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
782a0e80de1b8e9f24e10e40055cc1b545390cbd Fedora-8-i386-DVD.iso aa27d819079b8c92efa2ea58a5c0c84825f7a959 Fedora-8-i386-rescuecd.iso
Roberto Ragusa wrote:
Kip Thomas wrote:
Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
Ok, I will start by posting the most important part: the SHA1SUM to be sure you have downloaded the real thing.
Interesting to note the timestamp of the gpg signature; more than two days ago.
gpg: Signature made Sat 03 Nov 2007 12:14:43 AM CET using DSA key ID 4F2A6FD2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
782a0e80de1b8e9f24e10e40055cc1b545390cbd Fedora-8-i386-DVD.iso aa27d819079b8c92efa2ea58a5c0c84825f7a959 Fedora-8-i386-rescuecd.iso -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHK69jtEJp0E8qb9IRAkaYAJwOJfecqD4twkrZzI3SXD+4aWJV1ACfRsNX wTGqPOW2wS2aYjc2UTBSyLw= =b015 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I plan to use wget to d/l F8 and was checking out my mirror and discovered there was a list of available Fedora versions that was 6 ,7, 8! I clicked on 8 and a panel came up saying I am not allowed to do that. This makes me think it is there but waiting for permission to allow d/l of 8...
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 13:53 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
I plan to use wget to d/l F8 and was checking out my mirror and discovered there was a list of available Fedora versions that was 6 ,7, 8! I clicked on 8 and a panel came up saying I am not allowed to do that. This makes me think it is there but waiting for permission to allow d/l of 8...
Yep Karl, that is how it usually works. The mirrors have it synced up days/hours before the release date. You can sort of see it, but cdan't touch until that date when the permissions are granted to download.
(Although, at times, if not most, it starts to get leaked. But who cares, if it's out there, it's out there and that is less bandwidth used on release day)
Mike Chambers wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 13:53 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
I plan to use wget to d/l F8 and was checking out my mirror and discovered there was a list of available Fedora versions that was 6 ,7, 8! I clicked on 8 and a panel came up saying I am not allowed to do that. This makes me think it is there but waiting for permission to allow d/l of 8...
Yep Karl, that is how it usually works. The mirrors have it synced up days/hours before the release date. You can sort of see it, but cdan't touch until that date when the permissions are granted to download.
(Although, at times, if not most, it starts to get leaked. But who cares, if it's out there, it's out there and that is less bandwidth used on release day)
Well then I will keep checking it then. I will check every day until it works. A leak can get it started early and with DSL Internet you need every help you can get.
Mike Chambers wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 13:53 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
I plan to use wget to d/l F8 and was checking out my mirror and discovered there was a list of available Fedora versions that was 6 ,7, 8! I clicked on 8 and a panel came up saying I am not allowed to do that. This makes me think it is there but waiting for permission to allow d/l of 8...
Yep Karl, that is how it usually works. The mirrors have it synced up days/hours before the release date. You can sort of see it, but cdan't touch until that date when the permissions are granted to download.
(Although, at times, if not most, it starts to get leaked. But who cares, if it's out there, it's out there and that is less bandwidth used on release day)
Why isn't it made available over BitTorrent, then? Bandwidth isn't nearly as much of a problem, there...
Konstantin Svist wrote:
Why isn't it made available over BitTorrent, then? Bandwidth isn't nearly as much of a problem, there...
It is also made available as a torrent when it is released. Mirrors (which are volunteers) apparently don't want preferential treatment to torrents so it is all made available at the same date and time.
Rahul
Words by Kip Thomas [Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 03:04:12PM -0500]:
Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
It is rsynced. Nobody does that by hand and nobody will login to chmod anything just because. I know I wount.
And that has the added bonus of nice looking spikes on the network usage graphics :)
Kip Thomas wrote:
Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
#1. Leaking a release builds enthusiasm among hobbyists (as Fedora community should be).
#2. It helps create publicity.
Just a suggestion. Tnx.
I'm doing a "yum upgrade" of an F8T3 box. I suspect the 400+ Mbytes gets me to F8.
Konstantin Svist wrote:
Why isn't it made available over BitTorrent, then? Bandwidth isn't nearly as much of a problem, there...
Overall, bandwidth is a much greater problem with torrents. That why some ISPs are "managing" it.
Consider this.
I'm with example.net. The fine folks at example.net cache a local copy at linux.mirrors.example.net for their client's use.
example.net has downloaded it once.
A dozen example clients download it from linux.mirrors.example.net, and do so just as fast as their Internet connexion can possibly go. For me, that's something over 1 Mbytes/sec.
Three dozen others use the torrent. I don't know how well Torrent finds near neighbours, but at least the first few and most likely the last few are pulling from outside example.net's borders. Say example.net downloads a further dozen copies.
It's highly any of unlikely those torrent users pull if faster than they would from linux.mirrors.example.net, and probably most dos so more slowly as they need to find a fair few senders to pull at full speed (and I've noticed that sending at speed does bad things to receiving).
John Summerfield wrote:
Kip Thomas wrote:
Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
#1. Leaking a release builds enthusiasm among hobbyists (as Fedora community should be).
#2. It helps create publicity.
Just a suggestion. Tnx.
I'm doing a "yum upgrade" of an F8T3 box. I suspect the 400+ Mbytes gets me to F8.
Yep. It does. Refer http://spevack.livejournal.com/33314.html
Rahul
John Summerfield wrote:
I'm with example.net. The fine folks at example.net cache a local copy at linux.mirrors.example.net for their client's use.
I've yet to use an ISP that downloads a local copy of *anything* for my convenience. Other than invisible proxies, that is (had that problem in the past).
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, John Summerfield wrote:
Overall, bandwidth is a much greater problem with torrents. That why some ISPs are "managing" it.
Typically 3% of an ISP's userbase accounts for 75% of the data used, so the other 97% have to squeeze something out of 25%
Two ways to fix it, ISP increases bandwith 10 fold, thereby dramatically increasing your access and usage charges to pay for it, or do what most do now, that 3% must now try squeeze something out of what the other 97% dont use, and thanks to devices like net enforcer, the web surfers, gamers, and those with VPN's and so on do not have their net experiences screwed over by a bunch of 16yo warez freaks or copyright violators, resulting in 97% of the customer base being happy.
And what of the other 3%? Well its tuff luck, and one thing to be sure of, a *criminal* never calls the police because someone is stopping them from commiting their crime.
One of the problems with the torrent protocol is that its hard for a well meaning ISP to actually proxy it and become a local source for their clients.
Alan
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Res wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, John Summerfield wrote:
Overall, bandwidth is a much greater problem with torrents. That why some ISPs are "managing" it.
Typically 3% of an ISP's userbase accounts for 75% of the data used, so the other 97% have to squeeze something out of 25%
Two ways to fix it, ISP increases bandwith 10 fold, thereby dramatically increasing your access and usage charges to pay for it, or do what most do now, that 3% must now try squeeze something out of what the other 97% dont use, and thanks to devices like net enforcer, the web surfers, gamers, and those with VPN's and so on do not have their net experiences screwed over by a bunch of 16yo warez freaks or copyright violators, resulting in 97% of the customer base being happy.
And what of the other 3%? Well its tuff luck, and one thing to be sure of, a *criminal* never calls the police because someone is stopping them from commiting their crime.
Forgot to mention... Yes, its true a lot of legit stuff is now days distroed via torrents, but they suffer the same fate, and you only have to thank the folks who cant wait to go watch a movie on DVD or at the movie theaters and feel the need to leach it first for all that.
Yes I can see someone saying, but 1000 ppl d/ling via ftp would be worse, well, not over time, because torrents are freely available and warez ftp's are usually so limited in access and much harder to find for the average person, it wont matter. And for legit stuff like *nix? Well those ISPs run mirrors, and generally let their customers know about it.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
One of the problems with the torrent protocol is that its hard for a well meaning ISP to actually proxy it and become a local source for their clients.
To proxy a torrent, means non-discrimatory proxying, meaning it will proxy a file regardless legal or not, and the fact it would proxy illegal content is very grey area in law in many countries, in this country, it could be seen to be providing a ISP hosted copy of illegal content, and the laws that currently protect ISP's here from what their users do, may become void and we'd be screwed over in courts.
There are some ISP's in this country that are now using and some soon to be using such p2p proxying hardware, so I guess sooner or later the legal status in that regard will I'm sure be challenged in the federal court.
Konstantin Svist wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
I'm with example.net. The fine folks at example.net cache a local copy at linux.mirrors.example.net for their client's use.
I've yet to use an ISP that downloads a local copy of *anything* for my convenience. Other than invisible proxies, that is (had that problem in the past).
I have a loong wget that if the f8 is just like the current f7 with just an 8 in place of the 7, then the long address is correct. I ran it once and it complained that the directory does not exist. This is I think the correct answer until the lock is removed. My mirror is my Ala Mater and I know they will wait to the last second :-)
To proxy a torrent, means non-discrimatory proxying, meaning it will proxy a file regardless legal or not, and the fact it would proxy illegal content is very grey area in law in many countries, in this country, it
Its pretty clear in europe and fairly clear in the USA, under exactly the same laws that deal with web proxies and with ftp mirrors, all of which could also be carrying content in violation of a licence somewhere.
Over here an ISP for most actions is defined as a "mere conduit" for data.
No idea about .au, but then thats a country with a lot of more serious legal issues
Alan
Kip Thomas wrote:
Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
There is a currently open mirror in Europe. Considering that it is midnight there and that the site has good bandwith, I think it can handle a few downloads. So, here it is:
ftp://mirror.switch.ch/mirror/fedora/linux/releases/8/Fedora/i386/iso/SHA1SUM
ftp://mirror.switch.ch/mirror/fedora/linux/releases/8/Fedora/i386/iso/Fedora-8-i386-rescuecd.iso
ftp://mirror.switch.ch/mirror/fedora/linux/releases/8/Fedora/i386/iso/Fedora-8-i386-DVD.iso
You have to use something like wget, because the directories are invisible.
I downloaded the iso and the sha1sum matches with the one I posted a few hours ago.
Please remember that update servers could be unavailable until the moment of the official release.
Happy downloading. Someone willing to start a torrent?
Roberto Ragusa wrote:
Kip Thomas wrote:
Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
There is a currently open mirror in Europe. Considering that it is midnight there and that the site has good bandwith, I think it can handle a few downloads. So, here it is:
ftp://mirror.switch.ch/mirror/fedora/linux/releases/8/Fedora/i386/iso/SHA1SUM
ftp://mirror.switch.ch/mirror/fedora/linux/releases/8/Fedora/i386/iso/Fedora-8-i386-rescuecd.iso
ftp://mirror.switch.ch/mirror/fedora/linux/releases/8/Fedora/i386/iso/Fedora-8-i386-DVD.iso
You have to use something like wget, because the directories are invisible.
I downloaded the iso and the sha1sum matches with the one I posted a few hours ago.
Please remember that update servers could be unavailable until the moment of the official release.
Happy downloading. Someone willing to start a torrent?
It doesn't work for me and my wget -c.
On 11/5/07, Konstantin Svist fry.kun@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't work for me and my wget -c.
Works perfectly for me. Did you place the url in single quotes?
It works with:
wget -c "ftp://mirror.switch.ch/mirror/fedora/linux/releases/8/Fedora/i386/iso/Fedora-8-i386-DVD.iso"
Paul
Alan Cox wrote:
One of the problems with the torrent protocol is that its hard for a well meaning ISP to actually proxy it and become a local source for their clients.
Is it actually that hard, or is it that the ISPs don't really want to invest time/money into it? There are already BT clients out there which bias the up/down rates on various factors. So, theoretically, it could be done.
I tend to agree that the problem stems from trying to proxy everything (including "illegal" content). The only good way to work around this is to cache only specific releases (e.g. fedora iso) - but that would require some amount of human work to decide what goes and what stays. On the other hand, the same legal file might appear on several different trackers, and synchronizing between them all is an even bigger PITA.
The american ISPs take the cop-out way: they just declare a random limit for heavy users (because "unlimited" doesn't really mean "unlimited") and cut off the account if it downloads too much. It's easier than caching :(
Konstantin Svist wrote:
Karl Larsen wrote:
It doesn't work for me and my wget -c.
Works perfectly for me. Did you place the url in single quotes?
Nope. I must have spelled something wrong. But I did it again, thank you and It is now working!
I have wget doing the job. 34 hours left :-)
Karl Larsen wrote:
Konstantin Svist wrote:
Karl Larsen wrote:
It doesn't work for me and my wget -c.
Works perfectly for me. Did you place the url in single quotes?
Nope. I must have spelled something wrong. But I did it again, thank you and It is now working!
I have wget doing the job. 34 hours left :-)
That's why I never type in URLs. Copy & Paste are my best friends ;-)
Around 12:06am on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 (UK time), Karl Larsen scrawled:
I have wget doing the job. 34 hours left :-)
What speed are you getting from it - I am getting 300 kB/sec
Steve
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
To proxy a torrent, means non-discrimatory proxying, meaning it will proxy a file regardless legal or not, and the fact it would proxy illegal content is very grey area in law in many countries, in this country, it
Its pretty clear in europe and fairly clear in the USA, under exactly the same laws that deal with web proxies and with ftp mirrors, all of which could also be carrying content in violation of a licence somewhere.
Over here an ISP for most actions is defined as a "mere conduit" for data.
No idea about .au, but then thats a country with a lot of more serious legal issues
You're telling me :)
We are exempt and protected under law for what a user has or does, even in hosting, but we are required to take down sites, content if notified by legal means or by the govt dept that regulates online content (ABA), and if we fail to do so, the very law that protects us, turns on us, rightfully so I suppose. Over the years I have terminated sites for gambling, racism, R-rated sexual content, bomb making and hell of a lot more.
Never had a complaint of users serving movies and warez on our equipment, but complaints for end users serving from their home dsl etc, at a rate of 10 a day, somedays 20, that very law protects us over them, but again if we dont warn them to take action to stop them, thats when it becomes a grey area.
Steve Searle wrote:
Around 12:06am on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 (UK time), Karl Larsen scrawled:
I have wget doing the job. 34 hours left :-)
What speed are you getting from it - I am getting 300 kB/sec
Steve
I am using my DSL modem at the blazing speed of 27 kb/sec! This is slightly better than a 64 kb telephone modem which runs at 26kb as a rule :-)
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Konstantin Svist wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
One of the problems with the torrent protocol is that its hard for a well meaning ISP to actually proxy it and become a local source for their clients.
Is it actually that hard, or is it that the ISPs don't really want to invest time/money into it?
To give you an idea, a net enforcer costs arounds 100K AU$ each, now one per PoP, thats 7 here, however the amount of p2p use, that cost is MORE then recovered in the FIRST month alone!
I'm sure the specialised devices that do this would probably cost around the same, and again would pay for itself in very very quickly.
cache only specific releases (e.g. fedora iso) - but that would require some amount of human work to decide what goes and what stays.
and here lies the problem.
Around 12:25am on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 (UK time), Res scrawled:
rightfully so I suppose. Over the years I have terminated sites for gambling, racism, R-rated sexual content, bomb making and hell of a lot
What is wrong with gambling sites?
Steve
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Steve Searle wrote:
Around 12:25am on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 (UK time), Res scrawled:
rightfully so I suppose. Over the years I have terminated sites for gambling, racism, R-rated sexual content, bomb making and hell of a lot
What is wrong with gambling sites?
Steve
Ask the law makers :) It is permitted for stuff like horse racing etc, but online casinos etc are a no no, probably because the govt cant rip em off for a million for a licence to operate :)
Res wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Konstantin Svist wrote:
Is it actually that hard, or is it that the ISPs don't really want to invest time/money into it?
To give you an idea, a net enforcer costs arounds 100K AU$ each, now one per PoP, thats 7 here, however the amount of p2p use, that cost is MORE then recovered in the FIRST month alone!
Yeah, that's what I thought.. and that's pretty much my point - the result doesn't justify the investment :) Nowadays it's always an "all or nothing" kind of approach to problems like these.
Steve Searle wrote:
Around 12:25am on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 (UK time), Res scrawled:
rightfully so I suppose. Over the years I have terminated sites for gambling, racism, R-rated sexual content, bomb making and hell of a lot
What is wrong with gambling sites?
Steve
<sarcasm> I don't know about gambling sites, but I think the bomb making sites should be left up if they give good directions. That way, we would have less people doing things like blowing their fingers off by doing it wrong. We must protect those prospective bomb makers from themselves. </sarcasm>
Mikkel
on 11/5/2007 7:28 PM, Karl Larsen wrote:
Steve Searle wrote:
Around 12:06am on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 (UK time), Karl Larsen scrawled:
I have wget doing the job. 34 hours left :-)
What speed are you getting from it - I am getting 300 kB/sec
Steve
I am using my DSL modem at the blazing speed of 27 kb/sec! This is
slightly better than a 64 kb telephone modem which runs at 26kb as a rule :-)
I can't speak for your connection Karl, or the site perhaps being overloaded, but if I don't get 900 to 1000 I shut down and try later.
On Monday 05 November 2007 7:28:03 pm Karl Larsen wrote:
Steve Searle wrote:
Around 12:06am on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 (UK time), Karl Larsen
scrawled:
I have wget doing the job. 34 hours left :-)
What speed are you getting from it - I am getting 300 kB/sec
Steve
I am using my DSL modem at the blazing speed of 27 kb/sec! This is
slightly better than a 64 kb telephone modem which runs at 26kb as a rule :-)
Karl: Ouch! DSL must mean "damn slow line" in your neck of the woods. My condolences.
-- cmg
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Konstantin Svist wrote:
Res wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Konstantin Svist wrote:
Is it actually that hard, or is it that the ISPs don't really want to invest time/money into it?
To give you an idea, a net enforcer costs arounds 100K AU$ each, now one per PoP, thats 7 here, however the amount of p2p use, that cost is MORE then recovered in the FIRST month alone!
Yeah, that's what I thought.. and that's pretty much my point - the result doesn't justify the investment :)
Investment in the net enforcers, saving an average of $160K in data costs per PoP, per month, certainly justifies the initial cost outlay, after all you spend 100K once for a saving of 160K per month, therefore thats a nice contribution towards expanding, employing more staff, advertising, and of course company profit (remember... ISP's are not around for your enjoyment, they are a business out to make money, no profit = no business = no ISP)
But certainly it doesnt justify the investment into p2p cache units, since policies to shape the hell out of the abusers do a good enough job already.
Carroll Grigsby wrote:
On Monday 05 November 2007 7:28:03 pm Karl Larsen wrote:
I am using my DSL modem at the blazing speed of 27 kb/sec! This is slightly better than a 64 kb telephone modem which runs at 26kb as a rule :-)
Karl: Ouch! DSL must mean "damn slow line" in your neck of the woods. My condolences.
But it would go perfect with Damn Small Linux ;-)
Res wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Konstantin Svist wrote:
Res wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Konstantin Svist wrote:
Is it actually that hard, or is it that the ISPs don't really want to invest time/money into it?
To give you an idea, a net enforcer costs arounds 100K AU$ each, now one per PoP, thats 7 here, however the amount of p2p use, that cost is MORE then recovered in the FIRST month alone!
Yeah, that's what I thought.. and that's pretty much my point - the result doesn't justify the investment :)
Investment in the net enforcers, saving an average of $160K in data costs per PoP, per month, certainly justifies the initial cost outlay, after all you spend 100K once for a saving of 160K per month, therefore thats a nice contribution towards expanding, employing more staff, advertising, and of course company profit (remember... ISP's are not around for your enjoyment, they are a business out to make money, no profit = no business = no ISP)
But certainly it doesnt justify the investment into p2p cache units, since policies to shape the hell out of the abusers do a good enough job already.
oh.. whoops, misread what you wrote :P You're right, if ISPs really cared about the customers, maybe they could've invested a little $$ into multicast routers - which would lift a remove a lot of uselessly-duplicated traffic. But what's the point of thinking of what could've been :(
As I understand, one of the recent big problems ISPs are facing is that the "regular users" are joining the ranks of "few abusers." I mean, lots of customers visiting youtube and similar sites. You can't just block them all/slow them all down without repercussions...
Arg something you said marked this message as spam, so I will cut 'n paste into pine :) ..
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Konstantin Svist wrote:
you: "regular users" are joining the ranks of "few abusers." I mean, lots you: of customers visiting youtube and similar sites. You can't just block you: them all/slow them all down without repercussions...
We dont regard them as abusers :) What we term as abusers are those commiting criminal acts, by copyright violation and warez transfers, basically everything else is kind of legal there are some that do copyright violation for living, reburning and selling fake dvd's, cd's and so on, music, movies, software etc... Most web proxies cache youtube type data so if its repetitive, it'll be in cache anyway , we could enforce transparent proxies, (many ISP's here do) and block the common proxy ports at border routers to stop clients using other proxies to bypass ours, but its not enough of a problem to bother with at present.
Res.
Kip Thomas wrote:
Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
If you can't wait, go for f8rc3
This is the difference in package names between f8rc3 and f8 (x86_64):
$ diff f8rc3.lst f8.lst 22,23c22,23 < anaconda-11.3.0.50-1.x86_64.rpm < anaconda-runtime-11.3.0.50-1.x86_64.rpm ---
anaconda-11.3.0.50-2.x86_64.rpm anaconda-runtime-11.3.0.50-2.x86_64.rpm
804c804 < isomd5sum-11.3.0.50-1.x86_64.rpm ---
isomd5sum-11.3.0.50-2.x86_64.rpm
2091c2091 < rhgb-8.0.2-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm ---
rhgb-0.17.7-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm
2094c2094 < rhpxl-0.47-3.fc8.x86_64.rpm ---
rhpxl-0.49-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm
2171,2173c2171,2173 < selinux-policy-3.0.8-42.fc8.noarch.rpm < selinux-policy-mls-3.0.8-42.fc8.noarch.rpm < selinux-policy-targeted-3.0.8-42.fc8.noarch.rpm ---
selinux-policy-3.0.8-44.fc8.noarch.rpm selinux-policy-mls-3.0.8-44.fc8.noarch.rpm selinux-policy-targeted-3.0.8-44.fc8.noarch.rpm
I guess the packages in final-f8 will be signed, or signed differently than f8rc3.
Mogens
Today Res did spake thusly:
And what of the other 3%? Well its tuff luck, and one thing to be sure of, a *criminal* never calls the police because someone is stopping them from commiting their crime.
Unless they're in office in the US/UK...
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Scott van Looy wrote:
Today Res did spake thusly:
And what of the other 3%? Well its tuff luck, and one thing to be sure of, a *criminal* never calls the police because someone is stopping them from commiting their crime.
Unless they're in office in the US/UK...
In the US it wouldnt surprise me at all, but the UK, that would :) The UK has far far far more sanity in their justice system.
Res wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Scott van Looy wrote:
Today Res did spake thusly:
And what of the other 3%? Well its tuff luck, and one thing to be sure of, a *criminal* never calls the police because someone is stopping them from commiting their crime.
Unless they're in office in the US/UK...
In the US it wouldnt surprise me at all, but the UK, that would :) The UK has far far far more sanity in their justice system.
In the USA, the criminals make the laws. One advantage is that once they pass the laws to aid in safeguarding their negative actions effecting the middle class, the actions are no longer considered criminal.
Fedora 8 should be available soon.
Jim Cornette wrote:
Res wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Scott van Looy wrote:
Today Res did spake thusly:
And what of the other 3%? Well its tuff luck, and one thing to be sure of, a *criminal* never calls the police because someone is stopping them from commiting their crime.
Unless they're in office in the US/UK...
In the US it wouldnt surprise me at all, but the UK, that would :) The UK has far far far more sanity in their justice system.
In the USA, the criminals make the laws. One advantage is that once they pass the laws to aid in safeguarding their negative actions effecting the middle class, the actions are no longer considered criminal.
Fedora 8 should be available soon.
Fedora 8 will be available at my house in Las Cruces, NM USA in 23 hours. I have been d/l with my Darn Slow Link (DSL) at 27kb/sec from a mirror overseas. I doubt that my connection is causing any problems to the mirror.
John Summerfield wrote:
Konstantin Svist wrote:
Why isn't it made available over BitTorrent, then? Bandwidth isn't nearly as much of a problem, there...
Overall, bandwidth is a much greater problem with torrents. That why some ISPs are "managing" it.
Consider this.
I'm with example.net. The fine folks at example.net cache a local copy at linux.mirrors.example.net for their client's use.
example.net has downloaded it once.
A dozen example clients download it from linux.mirrors.example.net, and do so just as fast as their Internet connexion can possibly go. For me, that's something over 1 Mbytes/sec.
Three dozen others use the torrent. I don't know how well Torrent finds near neighbours, but at least the first few and most likely the last few are pulling from outside example.net's borders. Say example.net downloads a further dozen copies.
It's highly any of unlikely those torrent users pull if faster than they would from linux.mirrors.example.net, and probably most dos so more slowly as they need to find a fair few senders to pull at full speed (and I've noticed that sending at speed does bad things to receiving).
With less upload than download bandwidth, you should try s.th. like http://www.harald-hoyer.de/linux/traffic-control (slightly outdated, but may still work)
On Tuesday 06 November 2007, Harald Hoyer wrote:
[...]
With less upload than download bandwidth, you should try s.th. like http://www.harald-hoyer.de/linux/traffic-control (slightly outdated, but may still work)
FWIW, ktorrent has this ability.
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 05:07 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
Fedora 8 will be available at my house in Las Cruces, NM USA in 23 hours. I have been d/l with my Darn Slow Link (DSL) at 27kb/sec from a mirror overseas. I doubt that my connection is causing any problems to the mirror.
And Fedora 8 will be installed and used on my system in bout 1.5 hours after I install it, starting in bout 30 seconds :P
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 21:34:24 +1000, Res res@ausics.net wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Scott van Looy wrote:
Today Res did spake thusly:
And what of the other 3%? Well its tuff luck, and one thing to be sure of, a *criminal* never calls the police because someone is stopping them from commiting their crime.
Unless they're in office in the US/UK...
In the US it wouldnt surprise me at all, but the UK, that would :) The UK has far far far more sanity in their justice system.
They have their share of stupid laws as well. Having someone send you random data can get you thrown in jail unless you can convince a judge that it really is just random data and not encrypted data that you can be required to provide the decryption keys for under penalty of a long jail sentence.
I have also read comlaints about potential abuse in their relatively recent anti-nuisance law.
I suspect bad laws are common all over the world (at least anywhere there are politicians).
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 09:48 -0600, Mike Chambers wrote:
And Fedora 8 will be installed and used on my system in bout 1.5 hours after I install it, starting in bout 30 seconds :P
Fedora 8 now installed and running flawlessly as I type this. Only thing during the install was, it *seemed* to be a lot slower than it used to be than a few versions ago. I am pretty sure it took about 1.5 hours or so to do the install, but other than that it went OK.
On a side note, sure would like to see a very more simple, short version of release notes during the install, as between fighting to view it, and the packages being installed, slows it down, or it seems to anyway.
Mike Chambers wrote:
On a side note, sure would like to see a very more simple, short version of release notes during the install, as between fighting to view it, and the packages being installed, slows it down, or it seems to anyway.
We didn't finish it in time for any inclusion in the installer but there is a release summary (draft) at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/ReleaseSummary
Rahul
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 05:07 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
Fedora 8 will be available at my house in Las Cruces, NM USA in 23 hours. I have been d/l with my Darn Slow Link (DSL) at 27kb/sec from a mirror overseas. I doubt that my connection is causing any problems to the mirror.
And Fedora 8 will be installed and used on my system in bout 1.5 hours after I install it, starting in bout 30 seconds :P
Figured I'd try and download FC8 x86_64 and so far so good :)
[jeff@wisdom fedora]$ ftp mirror.switch.ch Trying 2001:620:0:8:203:baff:fe52:38e5... Connected to mirror.switch.ch (2001:620:0:8:203:baff:fe52:38e5). 220-SWITCHmirror (formerly known as Swiss SunSITE) welcomes you! [IPv6] 220
of course the files are hidden so you need to know the name.
cd mirror/fedora/linux/releases/8/Fedora/x86_64
then just get Fedora-8-x86_64-DVD.iso
an over IPv6 no less :)
Jeff
Mike Chambers wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 05:07 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
Fedora 8 will be available at my house in Las Cruces, NM USA in 23 hours. I have been d/l with my Darn Slow Link (DSL) at 27kb/sec from a mirror overseas. I doubt that my connection is causing any problems to the mirror.
And Fedora 8 will be installed and used on my system in bout 1.5 hours after I install it, starting in bout 30 seconds :P
Your going to be on it at least 17 hours sooner than I. In fact I am still trying to talk myself into even using F8. This F7 was buggy and hard to get working right, but now it is a useful system and considering I was on FC4 missing FC5 and FC6, and not until F7 did I upgrade.
I am old and do not need a lot of the new stuff on F8. So when I get F8 in hand I will make a DVD and put that up with F7. When ready I will load it on the computer and get the updates at least. And then check out what it does that F7 does not.
If my effort finding problems with F8 are a help then good. But for the most part I will be here on F7.
They have their share of stupid laws as well. Having someone send you random
We have plenty...
data can get you thrown in jail unless you can convince a judge that it really is just random data and not encrypted data that you can be required
But not that one.... the UK did try very hard to make the crypto law work that way but in the end compromised on a rather saner definition.
Now UK libel law is a real mess, and that causes big problems for social sites/blogs/community sites in general in the UK (you'll notice most are hosted out of the UK for this reason). Thats something UK folks should continue to beat up their politicians about.
Alan
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 20:39, Karl Larsen wrote:
Mike Chambers wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 05:07 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
Fedora 8 will be available at my house in Las Cruces, NM USA in 23 hours. I have been d/l with my Darn Slow Link (DSL) at 27kb/sec from a mirror overseas. I doubt that my connection is causing any problems to the mirror.
And Fedora 8 will be installed and used on my system in bout 1.5 hours after I install it, starting in bout 30 seconds :P
Your going to be on it at least 17 hours sooner than I. In fact I am
still trying to talk myself into even using F8. This F7 was buggy and hard to get working right, but now it is a useful system and considering I was on FC4 missing FC5 and FC6, and not until F7 did I upgrade.
I am old and do not need a lot of the new stuff on F8. So when I get
F8 in hand I will make a DVD and put that up with F7. When ready I will load it on the computer and get the updates at least. And then check out what it does that F7 does not.
If my effort finding problems with F8 are a help then good. But for
the most part I will be here on F7.
Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI Linux User #450462 http://counter.li.org.
I'm on dialup with a serial modem. Someone kindly sent me a set of cd iso's for FC6, but the F7 cd iso's took about 10 days to download, although I was listening to Internet radio also, so bandwidth was a bit restricted for the downloads. Thankfully I'm very patient, and as far as I'm concerned, it takes as long as it takes for a download.
I'll have to psych myself up a bit before going for F8, as another 10 days of downloading isn't much fun.
Just a bit of rambling on.
Nigel.
on 11/6/2007 4:32 PM, Nigel Henry wrote:
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 20:39, Karl Larsen wrote:
Mike Chambers wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 05:07 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
Fedora 8 will be available at my house in Las Cruces, NM USA in 23 hours. I have been d/l with my Darn Slow Link (DSL) at 27kb/sec from a mirror overseas. I doubt that my connection is causing any problems to the mirror.
And Fedora 8 will be installed and used on my system in bout 1.5 hours after I install it, starting in bout 30 seconds :P
Your going to be on it at least 17 hours sooner than I. In fact I am
still trying to talk myself into even using F8. This F7 was buggy and hard to get working right, but now it is a useful system and considering I was on FC4 missing FC5 and FC6, and not until F7 did I upgrade.
I am old and do not need a lot of the new stuff on F8. So when I get
F8 in hand I will make a DVD and put that up with F7. When ready I will load it on the computer and get the updates at least. And then check out what it does that F7 does not.
If my effort finding problems with F8 are a help then good. But for
the most part I will be here on F7.
Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI Linux User #450462 http://counter.li.org.
I'm on dialup with a serial modem. Someone kindly sent me a set of cd iso's for FC6, but the F7 cd iso's took about 10 days to download, although I was listening to Internet radio also, so bandwidth was a bit restricted for the downloads. Thankfully I'm very patient, and as far as I'm concerned, it takes as long as it takes for a download.
I'll have to psych myself up a bit before going for F8, as another 10 days of downloading isn't much fun.
Just a bit of rambling on.
Not sure exactly where you are Nigel, and none of my business either, but there are services that sell Linux distributions on CDs and DVDs for a very reasonable price. And I would think that you could get them much more quickly that way, with less trouble, than a 56k download. ;-)
Nigel Henry wrote:
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 20:39, Karl Larsen wrote:
Mike Chambers wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 05:07 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
Fedora 8 will be available at my house in Las Cruces, NM USA in 23 hours. I have been d/l with my Darn Slow Link (DSL) at 27kb/sec from a mirror overseas. I doubt that my connection is causing any problems to the mirror.
And Fedora 8 will be installed and used on my system in bout 1.5 hours after I install it, starting in bout 30 seconds :P
Your going to be on it at least 17 hours sooner than I. In fact I am
still trying to talk myself into even using F8. This F7 was buggy and hard to get working right, but now it is a useful system and considering I was on FC4 missing FC5 and FC6, and not until F7 did I upgrade.
I am old and do not need a lot of the new stuff on F8. So when I get
F8 in hand I will make a DVD and put that up with F7. When ready I will load it on the computer and get the updates at least. And then check out what it does that F7 does not.
If my effort finding problems with F8 are a help then good. But for
the most part I will be here on F7.
Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI Linux User #450462 http://counter.li.org.
I'm on dialup with a serial modem. Someone kindly sent me a set of cd iso's for FC6, but the F7 cd iso's took about 10 days to download, although I was listening to Internet radio also, so bandwidth was a bit restricted for the downloads. Thankfully I'm very patient, and as far as I'm concerned, it takes as long as it takes for a download.
I'll have to psych myself up a bit before going for F8, as another 10 days of downloading isn't much fun.
Just a bit of rambling on.
Nigel.
It comes down to money for both of us. I know I can get Cable TV plus Internet at blazing speed and I think you can too. But here the DSL which is 8.5 days faster than your serial modem, costs me $14.95 a month. If I was single I would have no further cost because I would learn to do my own SMTP. But alas my wife wants us to maintain the Zianet address that we are known for.
The Cable stuff is $20.00/mo for basic TV + $20.00/mo for 6 months and then then $44.00/mo thereafter. So it runs $64.00/mo in the long run. I expect they have about the same there.
So I just wait a bit longer and like the sound of money in my account :-)
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 22:38, David Boles wrote:
on 11/6/2007 4:32 PM, Nigel Henry wrote:
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 20:39, Karl Larsen wrote:
Mike Chambers wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 05:07 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
Fedora 8 will be available at my house in Las Cruces, NM USA in 23 hours. I have been d/l with my Darn Slow Link (DSL) at 27kb/sec from a mirror overseas. I doubt that my connection is causing any problems to the mirror.
And Fedora 8 will be installed and used on my system in bout 1.5 hours after I install it, starting in bout 30 seconds :P
Your going to be on it at least 17 hours sooner than I. In fact I am
still trying to talk myself into even using F8. This F7 was buggy and hard to get working right, but now it is a useful system and considering I was on FC4 missing FC5 and FC6, and not until F7 did I upgrade.
I am old and do not need a lot of the new stuff on F8. So when I get
F8 in hand I will make a DVD and put that up with F7. When ready I will load it on the computer and get the updates at least. And then check out what it does that F7 does not.
If my effort finding problems with F8 are a help then good. But for
the most part I will be here on F7.
Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI Linux User #450462 http://counter.li.org.
I'm on dialup with a serial modem. Someone kindly sent me a set of cd iso's for FC6, but the F7 cd iso's took about 10 days to download, although I was listening to Internet radio also, so bandwidth was a bit restricted for the downloads. Thankfully I'm very patient, and as far as I'm concerned, it takes as long as it takes for a download.
I'll have to psych myself up a bit before going for F8, as another 10 days of downloading isn't much fun.
Just a bit of rambling on.
Not sure exactly where you are Nigel, and none of my business either, but there are services that sell Linux distributions on CDs and DVDs for a very reasonable price. And I would think that you could get them much more quickly that way, with less trouble, than a 56k download. ;-)
In the UK I'd have no problem buying the cdrom sets, but in france this seems to be a no-go. The only only place I could find wouldn't even take my carte bleu for payment, you have to send them a cheque. I don't have a credit card so can't even order them from the UK. I'm not too bothered about the long download time, I was simply giving a bit of feedback to karl that dialup is worse than his DSL.
I will post to the Debian user france list, and to the Fedora france list. I can't believe you can't get the sets of iso's in france. I must have made some error on google. Saying that though, i did try a few different search lines, and zilch.
Thanks for your reply.
Nigel.
ps: Perhaps you just have to have a credit card these days to buy stuff. I've had problems with these in the past, and don't want to go down that road again.
Kip Thomas wrote:
Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
#1. Leaking a release builds enthusiasm among hobbyists (as Fedora community should be).
#2. It helps create publicity.
Just a suggestion. Tnx.
I will give my method for finding it early, but I will leave the implementation details for your personal discovery.
First, the puzzle pieces.
The mirror lists can be downloaded to a file.
You have two sources for the mirror lists already: 1. /etc/yum.repos.d/* 2. Fedora.org repo list
The list has an important piece of the puzzle: The country codes.
wget a mirror list and look at the first line, it gives a clue that you can include the country code in the query.
Create a text file containing all mirrors in all country codes. Edit the list to append the correct iso name.
foreach url in list wget $url
When one hits, immediately interrupt it and do it from the command line.
Easy peasy.
There are ALWAYS a couple of mirrors that don't get permissions set up correctly on the first pass.
Good luck!
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 12:36 -0600, Mike Chambers wrote:
I am pretty sure it took about 1.5 hours or so to do the install, but other than that it went OK.
That was an updating install over the top rather than a fresh install? If not, I haven't seen an install take that long since I had to go through a multi-CD install (they're not a quick medium, even without disc swapping).
By comparison, I've observed that network or local hard drive installs take from around 15 to 25 minutes, on average.
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 14:59 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
It comes down to money for both of us. I know I can get Cable TV plus Internet at blazing speed and I think you can too. But here the DSL which is 8.5 days faster than your serial modem, costs me $14.95 a month. If I was single I would have no further cost because I would learn to do my own SMTP. But alas my wife wants us to maintain the Zianet address that we are known for.
The Cable stuff is $20.00/mo for basic TV + $20.00/mo for 6 months
and then then $44.00/mo thereafter. So it runs $64.00/mo in the long run. I expect they have about the same there.
So I just wait a bit longer and like the sound of money in my
account :-)
One thing I learnt, *long* ago, was never get attached to an ISP derived mail or website address. They have you over a barrel if you want to keep it. Not to mention that you're stuffed if they go out of business or get bought out.
If you like the idea of a permanent address, never having to tell friends to contact you on a new one, etc., then register your own domain name, and pick any company that you like to host your mail (and any other services you want). And if they begin to suck, you can pick up your bat and ball and go somewhere else, and still use your own domain name and e-mail addresses.
It's well worth it, there's any number of hosting services that are reasonably priced. And, as their business is purely hosting, they can be a lot better at it than ISPs, many of whom just care about getting money off you to provide a connection to the internet.
You could even set up a blog... ;-)
Nigel Henry wrote:
In the UK I'd have no problem buying the cdrom sets, but in france this seems to be a no-go.
http://www.cd-dvd-linux-bsd.com/ http://ikarios.com/
These are listed at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/OnlineVendors
Rahul
Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 14:59 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
It comes down to money for both of us. I know I can get Cable TV plus Internet at blazing speed and I think you can too. But here the DSL which is 8.5 days faster than your serial modem, costs me $14.95 a month. If I was single I would have no further cost because I would learn to do my own SMTP. But alas my wife wants us to maintain the Zianet address that we are known for.
The Cable stuff is $20.00/mo for basic TV + $20.00/mo for 6 months
and then then $44.00/mo thereafter. So it runs $64.00/mo in the long run. I expect they have about the same there.
So I just wait a bit longer and like the sound of money in my
account :-)
One thing I learnt, *long* ago, was never get attached to an ISP derived mail or website address. They have you over a barrel if you want to keep it. Not to mention that you're stuffed if they go out of business or get bought out.
If you like the idea of a permanent address, never having to tell friends to contact you on a new one, etc., then register your own domain name, and pick any company that you like to host your mail (and any other services you want). And if they begin to suck, you can pick up your bat and ball and go somewhere else, and still use your own domain name and e-mail addresses.
It's well worth it, there's any number of hosting services that are reasonably priced. And, as their business is purely hosting, they can be a lot better at it than ISPs, many of whom just care about getting money off you to provide a connection to the internet.
You could even set up a blog... ;-)
Well, I have been thinking that I already have a google mail that I use very little but it is so good it would do as a full time email system. I had k5di.com registered to my then static ip number but then zianet was sold and my static ip went away.
But my wife of 52 years has gone along with my fooling around with SMTP and other things and it just didn't work out right. So we are here and happy.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
Now UK libel law is a real mess, and that causes big problems for social sites/blogs/community sites in general in the UK (you'll notice most are hosted out of the UK for this reason). Thats something UK folks should continue to beat up their politicians about.
Until 18 months ago, so were ours, now they are all more or less uniformed in every state, and are much more clear, now someone can say "he is an idiot and should enver work in this industry" and not be sued for it :)
Mogens Kjaer wrote:
Kip Thomas wrote:
Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
If you can't wait, go for f8rc3
This is the difference in package names between f8rc3 and f8 (x86_64):
?? My upgrade from f8t2 to f8 is 400 Mbytes++
Some of the packages are fairly large - OOo for example.
on 11/6/2007 5:29 PM, Nigel Henry wrote:
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 22:38, David Boles wrote:
on 11/6/2007 4:32 PM, Nigel Henry wrote: Not sure exactly where you are Nigel, and none of my business either, but there are services that sell Linux distributions on CDs and DVDs for a very reasonable price. And I would think that you could get them much more quickly that way, with less trouble, than a 56k download. ;-)
In the UK I'd have no problem buying the cdrom sets, but in france this seems to be a no-go. The only only place I could find wouldn't even take my carte bleu for payment, you have to send them a cheque. I don't have a credit card so can't even order them from the UK. I'm not too bothered about the long download time, I was simply giving a bit of feedback to karl that dialup is worse than his DSL.
I will post to the Debian user france list, and to the Fedora france list. I can't believe you can't get the sets of iso's in france. I must have made some error on google. Saying that though, i did try a few different search lines, and zilch.
Thanks for your reply.
Nigel.
ps: Perhaps you just have to have a credit card these days to buy stuff. I've had problems with these in the past, and don't want to go down that road again.
Your choice of course. I remember dial-up well. I used to buy the CDs from Cheapbytes but one time I decided to d/l a, I think it was 3 cds at that time, distro. Had I not had a second phone line I am sure that my wife would have killed me long before the download finished. ;-)
As for Fedora 8? It is very nice and I am sure that you will like it. The Fedora people have done another wonderful job.
Best wishes.
John Summerfield wrote:
Mogens Kjaer wrote:
Kip Thomas wrote:
Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
If you can't wait, go for f8rc3
This is the difference in package names between f8rc3 and f8 (x86_64):
?? My upgrade from f8t2 to f8 is 400 Mbytes++
Some of the packages are fairly large - OOo for example.
You are talking about differences between Test 2 and Test 3 while the post you replied to was about differences between Release Candidate 3 and the General Release.
http://qa-rockstar.livejournal.com/5669.html
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
?? My upgrade from f8t2 to f8 is 400 Mbytes++
Some of the packages are fairly large - OOo for example.
You are talking about differences between Test 2 and Test 3 while the post you replied to was about differences between Release Candidate 3 and the General Release.
Well actually, mine was a typo. It was really f8 test 3, and I applied all the updates that came on the standard repos.
If it wasn't at rc3 level, that's because someone hid the updates from me:-)
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 09:09 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 12:36 -0600, Mike Chambers wrote:
I am pretty sure it took about 1.5 hours or so to do the install, but other than that it went OK.
That was an updating install over the top rather than a fresh install? If not, I haven't seen an install take that long since I had to go through a multi-CD install (they're not a quick medium, even without disc swapping).
By comparison, I've observed that network or local hard drive installs take from around 15 to 25 minutes, on average.
Fresh/clean install. And the last couple versions have been like this. And they are taking little over an hour to install, and that was for around 868 or so packages. Also an NFS based install via boot.iso and the DVD.iso.
BTW, that is on a 2.8Ghz 1G Memory system.
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 09:18 +1030, Tim wrote:
If you like the idea of a permanent address, never having to tell friends to contact you on a new one, etc., then register your own domain name, and pick any company that you like to host your mail (and any other services you want). And if they begin to suck, you can pick up your bat and ball and go somewhere else, and still use your own domain name and e-mail addresses.
It's well worth it, there's any number of hosting services that are reasonably priced. And, as their business is purely hosting, they can be a lot better at it than ISPs, many of whom just care about getting money off you to provide a connection to the internet.
What I currently do, is have my domain registered via godaddy.com with the dns pointing to dyndns.com.
At dyndns.com I have my domain name and aliases setup.
On my computer (or in this case, the server one), I have ddclient that runs and checks for an IP every so often and reports it to dyndns.com. And then I run a little program called dnsmasq to help resolve local machines to run without having to resolve all the time and being slow.
Then I just setup my server machine to accept emails, web, ftp, etc. And I run a linksys router between my cable modem and my computers.
Might not be the best way, but I basically pay per year for domain name and dyndns service, maybe $30/year or so, give or take a few. But it works and lets me keep on top of administering and not having to change my emails all the time.
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 15:04 -0500, Kip Thomas wrote:
Create an occasional leak in the form of incorrect ftp permission somewhere, intentionally or not.
#1. Leaking a release builds enthusiasm among hobbyists (as Fedora community should be).
#2. It helps create publicity.
Just a suggestion. Tnx.
The downside of the other side of the coin is that a considerable amount of list traffic happens from beta-software breaking things. This is not the forum to handle those issues. If you want FC8 now, to beta test install, just ask someone that is active in the test process for permission to participate. Good Luck! Ric
Tim:
By comparison, I've observed that network or local hard drive installs take from around 15 to 25 minutes, on average.
Mike Chambers:
Fresh/clean install. And the last couple versions have been like this. And they are taking little over an hour to install, and that as for around 868 or so packages. Also an NFS based install via boot.iso and the DVD.iso.
BTW, that is on a 2.8Ghz 1G Memory system.
That does seem long, but I should have asked how much are you installing? Everything but the kitchen sink? I tend to just do a basic install, but maybe add about 5 or so packages. And my systems are a fraction of that speed.
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 21:15 +1030, Tim wrote:
Tim:
By comparison, I've observed that network or local hard drive installs take from around 15 to 25 minutes, on average.
Mike Chambers:
Fresh/clean install. And the last couple versions have been like this. And they are taking little over an hour to install, and that as for around 868 or so packages. Also an NFS based install via boot.iso and the DVD.iso.
BTW, that is on a 2.8Ghz 1G Memory system.
That does seem long, but I should have asked how much are you installing? Everything but the kitchen sink? I tend to just do a basic install, but maybe add about 5 or so packages. And my systems are a fraction of that speed.
Just the basic one that comes up initially, productivity/whatever option that is already selected. Didn't even bother to customize or anything.
Hrm, guess I'm gonna have to really really do a good precise timing on it next time, as I am 2nd guessing myself on how long it really took.
Mike Chambers wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 21:15 +1030, Tim wrote:
Tim:
By comparison, I've observed that network or local hard drive installs take from around 15 to 25 minutes, on average.
Mike Chambers:
Fresh/clean install. And the last couple versions have been like this. And they are taking little over an hour to install, and that as for around 868 or so packages. Also an NFS based install via boot.iso and the DVD.iso.
BTW, that is on a 2.8Ghz 1G Memory system.
That does seem long, but I should have asked how much are you installing? Everything but the kitchen sink? I tend to just do a basic install, but maybe add about 5 or so packages. And my systems are a fraction of that speed.
Just the basic one that comes up initially, productivity/whatever option that is already selected. Didn't even bother to customize or anything.
Hrm, guess I'm gonna have to really really do a good precise timing on it next time, as I am 2nd guessing myself on how long it really took.
Now that F8 is on a DVD it is time to install it. By the way, the Gnome CD-DVD burner is just about the best I have ever seen on a computer! Cudos to the people who wrote it.
When I load F8 I will time it from the time the DVD is selected to the time of first boot to the nearest second. Of course it means nothing because what causes it to be fast is the hardware.
Also it is good that I save the yum.log files so I can recall what I need to get to make Fedora work for me. The people on this list are going to make Fedora a pure product with no commercial software allowed. This is fine provided you be honest with a user. Had I not found a way to yum install commercial software to my Fedora I would be long gone.
The pure Fedora people need to be aware that a F8 user must find out how to do it, or they will use totem to see a movie, discover it doesn't work, and delete Fedora for a version that does work. And you should not say totem works because it can't.
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 08:13 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
When I load F8 I will time it from the time the DVD is selected to the time of first boot to the nearest second. Of course it means nothing because what causes it to be fast is the hardware.
While you are doing that, also do a separate time on the packages (the rpms) themselves being installed. The whole complete install isn't really a problem, as that basically goes as fast as the user goes and selects things. But the actual package installation part is what may or may not be sped up.
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Karl Larsen wrote:
The pure Fedora people need to be aware that a F8 user must find out
how to do it, or they will use totem to see a movie, discover it doesn't work, and delete Fedora for a version that does work. And you should not say totem works because it can't.
This is what Codec Buddy is for.
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 08:13 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
And you should not say totem works because it can't.
*It* can, it just doesn't do much good on Fedora (you need the "naughty" codecs to go along with it, to be useful). After the years of seeing how awful it was on Fedora, I was quite surprised to see how functional it was on Ubuntu. However, having said that, I don't think it's very good, even when it does play the files you want it to.
Mike Chambers wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 08:13 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
When I load F8 I will time it from the time the DVD is selected to the time of first boot to the nearest second. Of course it means nothing because what causes it to be fast is the hardware.
While you are doing that, also do a separate time on the packages (the rpms) themselves being installed. The whole complete install isn't really a problem, as that basically goes as fast as the user goes and selects things. But the actual package installation part is what may or may not be sped up.
OK. That is easy. Again it depends on how fast my computer can process an RPM. And that varies a lot I expect.
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Karl Larsen wrote:
The pure Fedora people need to be aware that a F8 user must find out
how to do it, or they will use totem to see a movie, discover it doesn't work, and delete Fedora for a version that does work. And you should not say totem works because it can't.
This is what Codec Buddy is for.
Do you still need to set up the lavina source and then yum install codec?
Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 08:13 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote:
And you should not say totem works because it can't.
*It* can, it just doesn't do much good on Fedora (you need the "naughty" codecs to go along with it, to be useful). After the years of seeing how awful it was on Fedora, I was quite surprised to see how functional it was on Ubuntu. However, having said that, I don't think it's very good, even when it does play the files you want it to.
Yes and I like VLC so well I always delete the other non-working stuff.
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 07:59 -0600, Mike Chambers wrote:
Hrm, guess I'm gonna have to really really do a good precise timing on it next time, as I am 2nd guessing myself on how long it really took.
One of my last installs, on a 1.6 GHz P4, with 512 megs of RAM, and (I think) I installed by booting the DVD, went like this:
2 minutes - it getting ready to start the installation. 30 minutes - doing the installing. 20 seconds - its post-install setting/cleaning up, then it reboots (it prompts you, first). 1.5 minutes - doing its "first boot". a few moments - me customising things in the first boot process (display, time, etc.). 10 seconds later, I'm logging in to a fully working system. Then I downloaded and installed a few other things.
The second step can be a bottleneck. Slow media, hard to read media, slow networking, and other hardware issues can drag that out. And for those doing an update, rather than fresh installs, the preparing to install and install can be very lengthy, as it works out how to upgrade your system, and then goes about replacing things.
On my new laptop (1.6 GHz Centrino Duo, 1 gig RAM), my latest install, was booting from the rescue CD to access a USB-connected HDD, with the DVD ISO file on it, did the installation part in 15 minutes.
In both those cases, I either went with the defaults, or maybe added about five or so packages, I really can't remember.
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Karl Larsen wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Karl Larsen wrote:
The pure Fedora people need to be aware that a F8 user must find out
how to do it, or they will use totem to see a movie, discover it doesn't work, and delete Fedora for a version that does work. And you should not say totem works because it can't.
This is what Codec Buddy is for.
Do you still need to set up the lavina source and then yum install
codec?
It's a little different with Codec Buddy. I imagine livna will still be availble for those who wish to go that route.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Interviews/CodecBuddy for more information.
Tim <ignored_mailbox <at> yahoo.com.au> writes:
2 minutes - it getting ready to start the installation. 30 minutes - doing the installing. 20 seconds - its post-install setting/cleaning up, then it reboots (it prompts
you, first).
1.5 minutes - doing its "first boot". a few moments - me customising things in the first boot process (display,
time, etc.).
10 seconds later, I'm logging in to a fully working system. Then I downloaded and installed a few other things.
The time taken to do the second step can vary a lot depending on the hard drive. On a modern fast machine with a disk with >7200rpm spindle speed and a good disk cache it can be about 20 minutes for the main install - but with an old 5400rpm drive with a lower speed cpu and slower fsb (like one of my old laptops!) it can be 2 hours! In that same laptop buying a new 80GB 7200 rpm drive changed the main install time from 2 hours 15 minutes to about 40 minutes - and the time was the same using CD install or using HD install from an iso image file.
In addition it is slower if you have less than optimal amount of RAM. In that same old laptop I added an extra 512MB RAM from the original 256 around the time of FC4 and it also speeded up the machine very noticeably including for the install.
Once you reach the end of the list in your posting I always also do a yum update immediately - and if this is soon after a release it is fairly quick, but if it is month after release it can take an hour or more depending on download speed and how fast your system is.
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 02:58:14PM -0800, Konstantin Svist wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
I'm with example.net. The fine folks at example.net cache a local copy at linux.mirrors.example.net for their client's use.
I've yet to use an ISP that downloads a local copy of *anything* for my convenience. Other than invisible proxies, that is (had that problem in the past).
http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/publiclist/Fedora/7/ lists the Fedora 7 public mirrors. Several ISPs listed there such as tummy.com and Steadfast Networks, specifically have mirrors exactly to cache this content, and their users are automatically redirected to their network-local mirror, which is both fast for the user, and less expensive than paying the transit fees for using upstream networks. There are several private mirrors which do this too, so they don't show up on the public list, but their users get the same benefits.
Thanks, Matt Fedora Mirror Wrangler
Tim:
2 minutes - it getting ready to start the installation. 30 minutes - doing the installing. 20 seconds - its post-install setting/cleaning up, then it reboots (it prompts you, first). 1.5 minutes - doing its "first boot". a few moments - me customising things in the first boot process (display, time, etc.). 10 seconds later, I'm logging in to a fully working system. Then I downloaded and installed a few other things.
Mike C:
The time taken to do the second step can vary a lot depending on the hard drive. On a modern fast machine with a disk with >7200rpm spindle speed and a good disk cache it can be about 20 minutes for the main install - but with an old 5400rpm drive with a lower speed cpu and slower fsb (like one of my old laptops!) it can be 2 hours! In that same laptop buying a new 80GB 7200 rpm drive changed the main install time from 2 hours 15 minutes to about 40 minutes
- and the time was the same using CD install or using HD install from an iso
image file.
My hard drives are old 5400 rpm ones, I think the bus speeds are going to be more of an issue for some. Though, granted, it's much easier to put a faster hard drive in than change the rest of your hardware.
In addition it is slower if you have less than optimal amount of RAM.
I'd imagine so for the RPM transaction checking period. But once you get past that, and are just unpacking RPMs I think speed is the main thing than the amount of RAM, so long as you don't have a very small amount.
In that same old laptop I added an extra 512MB RAM from the original 256 around the time of FC4 and it also speeded up the machine very noticeably including for the install.
I didn't think it'd install on a 256 meg system, I thought there was a higher minimum spec. Out of other systems I had around, with prior releases and other OSs, 256 megs would be the minimum that I'd put up with in anything. These days half a gig would seems to be the minimum acceptable amount. Unless you want a system that seems so slow that you'd swear it ran on punch cards...
Once you reach the end of the list in your posting I always also do a yum update immediately - and if this is soon after a release it is fairly quick, but if it is month after release it can take an hour or more depending on download speed and how fast your system is.
True, I was only factoring in the install time in the "install time," ;-) updates are yet another thing.
Tim <ignored_mailbox <at> yahoo.com.au> writes:
I didn't think it'd install on a 256 meg system, I thought there was a higher minimum spec. Out of other systems I had around, with prior releases and other OSs, 256 megs would be the minimum that I'd put up with in anything. These days half a gig would seems to be the minimum acceptable amount. Unless you want a system that seems so slow that you'd swear it ran on punch cards...
Indeed so nearly! - although I do still have an old machine with 256MB RAM and the DVD install won't work. nor an HD install off the same iso file in it - not for F7 or F6. However it did still install F7 from the KDE livecd and sometime in the coming few weeks I will try and install f8 that way on that machine - however my priority will be to install on the newer machines - starting with a laptop where it won't matter if I have problems and am not up and running within an hour or two. Once any issues are resolved I will work around the other machines - and eventually back to the old 256MB machine!