On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:26:53AM +0100, Jonathan Gift wrote:
> > > BTW, do you know the deb ftp address for sources.list? I only have the
> > > http one and the ftp would be faster.
> >
> > there's just been a thread recently about ftp vs. http, and how
> > http should be faster.
> >
> > to see if it's true for you, munge your sources.list to use FTP,
> > and do "apt-get update" and then put it back to HTTP, and do
> > "apt-get update" again and see which one really really sucks.
>
> BTW, which is the fastest? And do you happen to have the sources.list
> path for ftp? I'll give it a try.
try
apt-setup
or if you don't have that,
apt-get install base-config
which provides it. it lets you select, first of all,
which method (http/ftp) to use.
my sources.list resembles this:
deb http://security.debian.org potato/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.digex.net/debian/ stable main non-free contrib
# deb-src http://ftp.digex.net/debian/ stable main non-free contrib
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib
non-free
# deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main
contrib non-free
apparently ftp was designed for nosing around, checking out
directory listings, downloading a file, maybe another, moving on
to another directory... whereas http was designed for "here's
that file you asked for" thus making http quicker,
protocol-wise.
--
There are only two places in the world where time takes
precedence over the job to be done. School and prison.
--William Glasser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** http://www.dontUthink.com/
volunteer to document your experience for next week's
newbies -- http://www.eGroups.com/messages/newbieDoc
