[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian ISOs



On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:34:34PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Wed August 23 2006 12:32, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > In article <1156329705.4961.51.camel@silicium.ccc.cea.fr>
> > joss@debian.org writes:
> > >When a nice bittorrent frontend is installed, the user will only
> > > have to click on the link to start the download. This is true for
> > > Windows and Linux.
> > You left out the reconfigure the firewall(s) step.  Not only is this
> > non-trivial, the user may not have the ability to do so.
> 
> This is a bit of a red herring. Torrents work without re-configuring 
> firewalls, they just don't work as well.

They don't work well if there's NAT[1] involved, you wanted to say.  Do I
need to point out a wonderful opportunity to push in some IPv6 propaganda?

Too bad, most torrent clients seem to be heavily lagging behind the rest of
network software even though it's them who would benefit the most from
peer-to-peer (duh) addressing.  Most but not all, and since you get to
choose both the tracker software and the suggested clients...


The relevant download page can say <<END
* if you have IPv6 connectivity, or can configure it (->howto), download the
ISOs using bittorrent.  For this, install package XXX, or, on M$ Windows
systems, download and run ->this.
* if you have only IPv4, you can still use bittorrent.  If you're behind
NAT, your download speed will suffer unless you can reconfigure your
firewall (->discussion).
* if you can't run bittorrent at all, you'll have to fall back to ->http or
->ftp.  This method should work everywhere, although it puts a strain on our
servers.
END

I hope this is dumbed down enough to handle users who would be capable to
reconfigure their firewalls in the first place.  If they have that much
clue, it's a waste to use a bittorrent-specific one-time fix instead of the
Final Solution to the NAT Question.


[1]. In the typical sense of the word, that is.
-- 
1KB		// Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
		//	Never attribute to stupidity what can be
		//	adequately explained by malice.



Reply to: