[CentOS] Re: yum vs up2date

[Scott Silva]

John Summerfield spake the following on 9/7/2006 9:24 AM:
> Jim Perrin wrote:
>> On 9/7/06, John Summerfield
>> <debian at herakles.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Perrin wrote:
>>> >> Does this mean you don't wish to create a workable mirror system?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Just because it doesn't fit into how you think it should work doesn't
>>> > mean it's not workable. Stop trolling.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I'm not trolling, I pointed out a serious problem with it and suggest
>>> how it could be improved.
>>
>>
>> The above comment I references is a passive-aggressive troll. If you
>>
> In contrast, I found Johnny's response pretty disappointing.
> 
> I'm not going to all this trouble to cause grief, I want something that
> works properly _for the user_, not that just seems to work.
It works properly for a great majority of the users. There is no way to make a
system that works for "every user" without having the user pick a mirror and
hope it works. That is what Debian does. It asks you to make a decision on
what mirrors "you" want to use. It does not determine if those servers are
serving on 100MBit lines or a 1.5 MBit T1. You pick from a list and hope they
are fast and current. The CentOS system makes sure that only current servers
that are geographically close "as possible" are given to you. You wouldn't
want the server next door given to you if it hasn't fully synced with the
master mirrors, because you would have lots of speed and no data to get.

-- 

MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!