Re: I need help
On Wed 17 Feb 2016 at 18:09:03 (-0600), Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 2/17/2016 5:34 PM, David Wright wrote:
> >On Wed 17 Feb 2016 at 14:07:30 (-0600), Richard Owlett wrote:
> >>[snip]
> >>>Depends on what you consider to be 'fast'. Is 120K/s fast?
> >
> >This laptop has 2255 packages on it, the total download size of which
> >is about 3GB. At a throughput of 120KB/s, that'd be about 7 hours.
> >The base system is nothing like that size of course, and you can build
> >up the system gradually. Just make sure to keep/backup the .deb files.
> >
> >>Compared to what?
> >>I recall loading the OS from paper tape. We *DID* have a high speed
> >>reader after all <GRIN>
> >
> >That'd be about 1KB/s with 9-track perhaps.
>
> Did you notice I said PAPER tap, not magnetic ;>
Sorry about the typo; my fingers have had a decade of typing 9-track
(for magnetic) since their decade of typing 8-track (for punched
paper) tape.
We were reading 8-track punched paper tape at 1000cps through the
1970s on an ocean-going IBM 1130. The readers were very compact and
worked by capacitance. They were much slower than Colossus's readers
in WW2, but had an impressive ability to stop the tape dead instantly.
I don't know what sort of high speed your reader could achieve.
> >>More seriously use https://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ to select an
> >>appropriate vendor. I originally did that because all the
> >>connectivity I had was a 56k dial-up line.
> >
> >That's bits/s of course, and not even a throughput either.
>
> Your point?
Dropping from 120,000 bytes/s to perhaps 20x slower on dial-up
makes purchasing the entire distribution on DVDs very sensible.
An installation started at bedtime and finished by morning on
broadband would become longer than the working week on dial-up.
So my point was that while netinst and downloading were quite
impractical in your former situation, 120K/s could well be
sufficient for some people to rely on.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: