This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: "Mirrors list order is snafued" - What is the order supposed to be?
- From: "Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>
- To: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>,"CygWin-Apps" <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:55:32 -0000
- Subject: Re: "Mirrors list order is snafued" - What is the order supposed to be?
- References: <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKKEDBDLAA.g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>>
>>> I guess the best would be to sort by "ping time" (smalest to
>>> bigger) to help reduce unnecessary trans-oceanic downloads.
>>> But of course it would need to check them each time... or may it be
>>> cached in the local setup.ini?
>>
>> Ping time would probably be rather unfriendly to the mirrors :-)
>
> Would this seriously be a concern? I can't imagine that the cygwin
> user base is that update-happy that they'd be flooding download
> servers (which would have to serve them multimegabytes anyway) with
> pings. Especially when we still have folks going, "Hi, I recently
> upgraded from B6. Why did you break everything?".
I don't know. But pinging 30 to 40 servers seems rather a heavyweight
solution.
>> I was thinking treeview Continent/Country/Site.
>>
>
> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT MORE
> TREEVIEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> ;-)
>
> Seriously, what I'd really like to see us work towards is a UI-less
> mirror selection system as the default. 99% of users couldn't give a
> whit which server the stuff is coming from, as long as it works.
> Hence, a UI can only cause grief for all involved, and the more
> involved it is, the more grief it will cause.
Nevertheless, wouldn't you agree that the treeview I proposed above would be
an improvement over the current listview?
Max.