Orchid XP v8 schrieb:

> I read somewhere that "ubuntu" is an ancient African word meaning "I 
> can't get Debian to work"...

LOL!

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan schrieb:

>     When it comes to downloading large files or ISO's, you're shooting 
> yourself in the foot. Bittorrent is the way to go.

Why would that be? It appears to me that my local internet connection is 
usually the bottleneck, so it's unlikely to get me extra speed. And it's 
not like I daily download Debian distros; and my internet connection 
seems quite stable, too. It has been a while since some download crashed 
on me.


>>> BTW, I don't see the logic behind an offline Linux in favor of an
>>> online Windows if security is of concern... :)
>>
>> Because I haven't got the slightest clue about administering Linux, so I
> 
>     And you're using Debian, of all distros?
> 
>     <dodges tomato>

No tomato airborne.

The reason is, of course, the very same: Not having the slightest clue 
about administering Linux obviously also includes not having the 
slightest clue what distro may be easiest to administer. So the decision 
for Debian was, of course, based on other considerations.

In fact, it was a comparatively simple one: It was the only distro for 
an AMD64 system that I could easily get my hands on without paying a dime.


>> For instance, I guess my Linux system would be a big gaping security
>> hole if I connected it to the internet directly. I haven't knowingly
>> installed any firewall, but I did install Samba, activated XDMCP, and
> 
>     Maybe it's a bad idea, but I just use the firewall in my router.

I don't have a router. All I have is a DSL modem, which can only connect 
a single computer to the internet at any time (using PPPoE).

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Neeum Zawan schrieb:

> >     When it comes to downloading large files or ISO's, you're shooting 
> > yourself in the foot. Bittorrent is the way to go.

> Why would that be? It appears to me that my local internet connection is 
> usually the bottleneck, so it's unlikely to get me extra speed. And it's 
> not like I daily download Debian distros; and my internet connection 
> seems quite stable, too. It has been a while since some download crashed 
> on me.

  Why are you so paranoid about the bittorrent protocol? There's nothing
to it. The only difference between a regular http/ftp download and using
bittorrent is that your bittorrent client will also upload the same data
you are downloading to others. A paranoid person might not be comfortable
with that last idea, but I can assure you that bittorrent has been used
for quite many years by millions of people, and it has presented no
problems regarding to privacy, computer security or the like. Using
bittorrent is in no way less secure than using a web browser (and in
fact, I'd say it's *more* secure, knowing how many security holes have
been found in all web browsers during their history).

  Even if downloading via bittorrent wouldn't give you any speed advantage,
it's not like you would lose something by using it. If a large file is
available primarily through bittorrent, then why not? I see no reason to
avoid it on principle. Just download it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/31/09 07:21, clipka wrote:
>> When it comes to downloading large files or ISO's, you're shooting
>> yourself in the foot. Bittorrent is the way to go.
>
> Why would that be? It appears to me that my local internet connection is
> usually the bottleneck, so it's unlikely to get me extra speed. And it's

	If your Internet connection is slow, then perhaps it makes no 
difference. On some servers, downloading an ISO is as slow as 100 KB/s. 
Using Bittorrent, I can max out my connection (over a MB/s).


-- 
As long as I can remember, I've had amnesia.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:

>     If your Internet connection is slow, then perhaps it makes no 
> difference. On some servers, downloading an ISO is as slow as 100 KB/s. 
> Using Bittorrent, I can max out my connection (over a MB/s).

Well, in theory BT makes it easier to get good download rates. In 
reality, using BT is like downloading anything else; sometimes you get 
good speeds, and sometimes you don't. It depends what you're trying to 
download. (E.g., try obtaining some old version of Debian. You'll find 
it has, like, 3 seeds and no other clients, and it still takes weeks to 
download. Try getting the latest version and you should have no 
trouble.) It's not much different than the variable download rates 
single servers provide.

PS. Why is it that all known motherboard manufacturers can't serve 
driver downloads at more than 2 KB/sec??

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:

>   Why are you so paranoid about the bittorrent protocol?

Am I?

If I'd /need/ it and still refused to use it, /that/ would be paranoid.

I don't think there's much paranoia in keeping the number of installed 
programs low by avoiding to install software I don't normally need.


>   Even if downloading via bittorrent wouldn't give you any speed advantage,
> it's not like you would lose something by using it. If a large file is
> available primarily through bittorrent, then why not? I see no reason to
> avoid it on principle. Just download it.

So I guess you're installing each and every piece of software in the 
world that doesn't make you lose anything, just because other people say 
you should because they're all enthusiastic about it?

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> nemesis schrieb:
> 
>> You're kind of paranoid, huh? ;)  You never really used bittorrent?
> 
> No Sir; up until this day and hour, I have managed to stay /far/ away 
> from it. So far that I have not much of an idea what it /really/ 
> actually is.
> 
It basically works like this. The host site has the complete file and a 
"tracker". The trackers job is to keep track of which people "it" knows 
are doing file requests, and can pass on that information to your 
client. Your own client will then connect to the tracker's FTP, if the 
fragment needed isn't available some place else, or to one of the other 
clients. This means that if *every other* client has a copy of all the 
fragments, the file server itself can sit idle, while transfers take 
place between the clients that already have a copy.

The trick of how this works is that each fragment has its own checksum, 
so, as a result, its nearly impossible for someone to insert bad data 
into their copy. Your own client will detect it automatically. While 
this does mean you need some ports open, to allow other people to use 
you are a source, they can't use that to get into your machine, or send 
you bad files, etc. Any errors introduced will be detected in the 
fragment by fragment checks, or the complete file checksum, which won't 
match, if they corrupted the data. In general, this means less bandwidth 
to the file server, more sources, so if one goes down, even the tracker, 
as long as you are already connected to other clients, you can still 
complete the download, and the only files "shared" are those that you 
are in the process of/completed downloading, or those, in the case of 
some clients that support it, which you "specifically" told the client 
to start seeding (which means you become the tracker/server for that 
file). But, since you have to tell someone that you exist, to seed the 
file as a main source and tracker, people can't just connect to your 
machine and start doing things. They *must* have correct descriptor file 
for what you are seeding, including checksum and file list, to even 
access it.

All in all, its pretty secure, much more stable than normal FTP, can be 
resumed at any time, as long as the file(s) are still being tracked on 
the server you request from, and you can transfer **multiple** files, as 
a set, instead of just single ones. Been a "lot" of times, especially 
when dealing with dipshits like Sony Entertainment, when I wish it was 
universal, instead of FTP. I mean, who puts up a 3GB download, for a 
game that "might" be run on a system with less than broadband, then 
makes the FTP server "non-resumable"? Hope to hell the connection 
doesn't drop, or a few packets time out, or you are right back at square 
0. I solved "that" issue by... finding someone with the Plantinum 
edition of the game and using bittorrent to get it, instead.

Its very safe, has more checks and double checks in it, to make sure you 
get what you should, than FTP does, and you only really need to worry 
about someone pulling the files form the tracker, before you finish, if 
you have to stop it for a few days. And that is usually only an issue 
with stuff you shouldn't be downloading in the first place. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Neeum Zawan schrieb:
> 
>>     When it comes to downloading large files or ISO's, you're shooting 
>> yourself in the foot. Bittorrent is the way to go.
> 
> Why would that be? It appears to me that my local internet connection is 
> usually the bottleneck, so it's unlikely to get me extra speed. And it's 
> not like I daily download Debian distros; and my internet connection 
> seems quite stable, too. It has been a while since some download crashed 
> on me.
> 
This is not actually the case. Well, at least with Windows. For some 
wacky reason, Windows handles "multiple" connections faster than a 
single one. Don't ask me why.. So, you are getting less than optimal 
bandwidth, if its only doing "one" thing. The other issue is, if its a 
recent posting of the file(s), then an FTP server can get hit by so many 
people it creates a bottle neck. Or, you can have a server some place 
between working funky, which creates one. Having "multiple" sources, 
unless they are all crappy connections, means that, for the most part, 
you will get your data from the "fastest" of them possible, all the 
time. I would say that I manage *better* download speeds, from 
*everyplace* I have ever downloaded, using bittorrent, than I have from 
regular FTP servers, and that is true even when I have it intentionally 
throttled to 50% of my capacity.

Oh, and that is one thing you can **not** do with FTP. FTP is blind to 
how much bandwidth you use. It will use as much as it can, sans what 
ever other processes are using. With bittorent you can "throttle" that 
down to 50%, or what ever, so, if you have other things to do, you have 
give it as much, or as little, as you want it to use, while leaving what 
ever else you are doing unaffected by the bandwidth being used by it.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 
>>     If your Internet connection is slow, then perhaps it makes no 
>> difference. On some servers, downloading an ISO is as slow as 100 
>> KB/s. Using Bittorrent, I can max out my connection (over a MB/s).
> 
> Well, in theory BT makes it easier to get good download rates. In 
> reality, using BT is like downloading anything else; sometimes you get 
> good speeds, and sometimes you don't. It depends what you're trying to 
> download. (E.g., try obtaining some old version of Debian. You'll find 
> it has, like, 3 seeds and no other clients, and it still takes weeks to 
> download. Try getting the latest version and you should have no 
> trouble.) It's not much different than the variable download rates 
> single servers provide.
> 
> PS. Why is it that all known motherboard manufacturers can't serve 
> driver downloads at more than 2 KB/sec??
> 
Yeah, that issue exists. They probably throttle the "older" files back a 
lot, to save bandwidth for stuff that is more important. But.. I have 
never met an FTP site, with rare exception, which had "new" files on it, 
whose bandwidth didn't suck entirely, precisely because it was dividing 
its bandwidth between 800 people, instead of between 789 people making 
"brief" requests for new sources, and maybe 11 people actually 
downloading 1-2 fragments that where not in the P2P cloud of other 
bittorrent users yet. And, those 11 people don't stay in that state, if 
there is a significant number of downloaders, for more than 30 seconds. 
The only time you get bad results is, as you say, when the only source 
is the tracker, which normally doesn't "need" high bandwidth, or all the 
people connected to you are guys with dialup, because they are the only 
ones that can't get the file(s) (besides you), from a faster source, and 
have been trying to get them for the last 4 months. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 10/31/09 10:05, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>> If your Internet connection is slow, then perhaps it makes no
>> difference. On some servers, downloading an ISO is as slow as 100
>> KB/s. Using Bittorrent, I can max out my connection (over a MB/s).
>
> Well, in theory BT makes it easier to get good download rates. In
> reality, using BT is like downloading anything else; sometimes you get
> good speeds, and sometimes you don't. It depends what you're trying to
	
	Hence "can".


-- 
Every hard drive I've ever bought has been larger than all my previous 
hard drives combined. And this is without even trying.
--Seen on Slashdot.org

Post a reply to this message