openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Microsoft Censors OpenOffice Download Links
Date Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:14:43 GMT
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:56 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 August 2013 19:44, Rory O'Farrell <ofarrwrk@iol.ie> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:39:16 -0400
>> Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Donald Whytock <dwhytock@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Hagar Delest <hagar.delest@laposte.net>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> Objet : Re: Microsoft Censors OpenOffice Download Links
>>> >> >> Not to speak for them, but I suspect they would point out the
fact
>>> >> >> that we there are over 100 Apache projects, and they all seem
to do
>>> >> >> fine with distribution via the mirrors.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Personally, I'd wonder where this rates with us in terms of
priority.
>>> >> >> Compare to, say, forum stability improvements, code signing
for our
>>> >> >> installers, and further buildbot coverage, where do torrents
rate?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Of course it's not a priority.
>>> >> > But think about the mechanism of torrent: once it's initiated,
it
>>> >> spreads by itself without any input needed. I'm not sure we need powerful
>>> >> resources for the seeds, we can even limit the number of uploads I guess.
>>> >> And then let the torrent spread among users.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > A forum was not in the field of the ASF scope. The AOO forum is
still
>>> >> doing and rather well, there is a lot of cooperation and feedback when
>>> >> information is forwarded from on side to the other. So why not make
a
>>> >> torrent a first for ASF?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Please remember that you're handling an office suite, it's not
a niche
>>> >> program, it's something that is heavily popular, you tell it yourself
when
>>> >> you inform the list about the millions downloads. Ubuntu offers torrents
>>> >> for example.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> AOO is popular.  Torrents are not.  I bet that <1% of downloads were
>>> >> of torrent, when OOo had them.
>>> >>
>>> >> Remember, a common question from users is "I just downloaded
>>> >> OpenOffice and now I cannot find it".  So skill level of typical user
>>> >> is not ideal for explaining how to download via P2P.
>>> >>
>>> >> > If ASF does not want to do new things because no other ASF project
has
>>> >> even tried, then I'm rather worried about the future. Especially when
on
>>> >> the other side LibreOffice has a so efficient team, very good at marketing
>>> >> their project.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. Maybe ask LibreOffice how many torrent downloads they see?  That
>>> >> would be an interesting number to know.
>>> >>
>>> >> 2. This is not a question of avoiding doing something new.  It is a
>>> >> question of prioritization based on cost and benefit.
>>> >>
>>> >> 3. Torrents are not even new. They are old technology.
>>> >>
>>> >> 4. There is nothing to prevent someone from seeding a torrent for AOO
>>> >> today, right now if you thought it was important.  It does not need
to
>>> >> come from Apache.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > Infra could conceivably create torrents for every ASF distro file, probably
>>> > on an automated basis.  Were that to happen, the effort by the AOO TLP
>>> > would be nil and the effort proportionally related to AOO would be
>>> > negligible.
>>> >
>>> > Of course, this could take some significant setup effort on Infra's part,
>>> > and if only the AOO torrents were ever used someone might say, "Why are
we
>>> > doing this for only one TLP?"
>>> >
>>> > It would be best if ASF could do it so as to add legitimacy to the torrent.
>>> >  Otherwise, if AOO itself was doing it, it would need to be on a
>>> > respected/respectable torrent server, such that we could point to it and
>>> > say, "That is the official AOO torrent."
>>> >
>>>
>>> I think that's the key.  If it is to be considered "official" then we
>>> need sufficient control to ensure that it has not been tampered.  What
>>> we do right now is have Release Candidates on Apache servers, which
>>> are voted on and then copied onto another Apache server for archives,
>>> and then rsynced from that Apache server by SourceForge.  And all
>>> along we have the original digital signature files that can be
>>> verified.  So it is around as secure as we can go without taking the
>>> builds themselves right from Apache-hosted buildbots, which is the
>>> next logical step.
>>>
>>> But honestly my low motivation for this is based on the fact that
>>> we're talking about a 150MB file, not a 4GB ISO image.  The typical
>>> user can download AOO in less time than it took me to write this note.
>>>  For me it takes longer to install AOO than to download it.  So in the
>>> grand order of annoyances related to AOO, the download time does not
>>> seem to rate very highly.
>>>
>>> That's my personal opinion.  But the nice thing about Apache is this
>>> doesn't prevent someone else from moving this forward if they have the
>>> motivation.  Everyone is able to scratch their own itch here.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> > Maybe a cheap 10gig VM?
>>> >
>>> > Don
>>
>> With respect, Rob, we don't all live in fibre access broadband areas. I count myself
lucky in having 200KB/sec access; there are those who are still stuck with 56KB modems on
bad dial-up lines. My OpenOffice download is typically 12-14 minutes.
>
> But would a torrent improve the download times over slow links?
> Surely the limiting factor is the link speed in that case, as any
> download servers would have a much higher bandwidth.
>

Exactly.  If you are client-bandwidth limited, then the goal is to
fill your pipe by downloading in multiple threads.  One way is to use
HTTP/1.1 features to do parallel requests.  Another is torrents.  But
there is no reason (at least none offered here today) why torrents
would be faster than HTTP in that situation.

Certainly, if you are downloading illegally shared files, or
politically censored documents or whatever,  where there is no stable
host or URL for them, then the robustness of torrents has some unique
value.   But I don't think think we're in that situation here.

Also, if the server bandwidth is much less then the client's, then
torrents could have a value, since they aggregate multiple hosts..
But I don't think think we're in that situation here either.  And
given the fact that the SourceForge bandwidth is already quite good,
any advantage on a super fast client would be seconds.

-Rob

>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rory O'Farrell <ofarrwrk@iol.ie>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message