It's not a matter of voting... it's a matter of paying for the ftp server bandwidth. Using bittorrent you pay for the transfer by uploading a bit yourself, not to mention that many volunteers (like me) leave their bittorrents clients up and running long after they're done downloading (I've already uploaded about 35 DVD's worth).
What's the difference between 4 CDs and 1 DVD split into 4 chunks? Nothing. If you want to make a case for distributing costs, then yank the CDs and make them only available as torrents as well.
umm ... we are already distributing the CD ... if/when we distribute the DVD, that is, of course, that is an additional doubling of the size.
The major issue with the DVD is still it's size. At > 2gb (x12 arches) it is a problem to all but FTP and apache that has been given LFS support.
So, Jack, are you writing the check to do (2.2gb/DVD)x(12 DVDS)x(100 mirrors)= 2640 GB = 2.64 TB just to get the DVDs to the mirrors.
Also we are going to have a CentOS5 and CentOS6 probably before we get rid of centos-2 ... and there will be 4 arches (OR 11TB) just to transfer the DVDs to the mirrors them ... and it makes 26.4GBx4=105gb of mirror space just for DVDs ....
I'm not sure you have completely though out the implications of your
You're right, I did not think of the storage or getting them to the mirrors. I was thinking only of the act of downloading.
That said, I think "who's writing the check" is a strawman. Mirrors are provided by volunteers who can opt out any time they decide the costs are too great.
Jack