RE: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in one big archive ?

RE: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in one big archive ?

[Richard Campbell]

>Impractical. As I said, almost 100% of people won't want 100% of packages.

It might be interesting to poll in some way, considering how often this 
comes up.  I suspect more than "almost 0%" might want a 1-button, 
overnight-style install.

>Frankly, this odd method only makes the slightest sense in your unusual
>situation (downloads constricted by number of files not file size).

I have every package selected, and as new packages appear I install
them.

>tetex ? (Document processing system)
>lilypond ? (Sheet music production)
>
>Both multi-megabyte packages for very specialized requirements.

Got them both.  Haven't used either yet, but if I want to they are 
installed and up to date.

-Richard Campbell.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in one big archive ?

[Max Bowsher]

Richard Campbell <richard.campbell@air2web.com> wrote:

>> Impractical. As I said, almost 100% of people won't want 100% of
>> packages.
>
> It might be interesting to poll in some way, considering how often
> this comes up.  I suspect more than "almost 0%" might want a 1-button,
> overnight-style install.

This doesn't require one big archive. There is nothing stopping anyone with
a slow but flat rate connection from running setup, choosing everything, and
letting it get on with it.

>> Frankly, this odd method only makes the slightest sense in your
>> unusual situation (downloads constricted by number of files not file
>> size).
>
> I have every package selected, and as new packages appear I install
> them.
>
>> tetex ? (Document processing system)
>> lilypond ? (Sheet music production)
>>
>> Both multi-megabyte packages for very specialized requirements.
>
> Got them both.  Haven't used either yet, but if I want to they are
> installed and up to date.

I have everything downloaded and kept up to date (but not installed). But at
no point would one big archive have been useful to me.

Max.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in one big archive ?

[Brian Gallew]

Richard Campbell said:
> It might be interesting to poll in some way, considering how often
> this  comes up.  I suspect more than "almost 0%" might want a
> 1-button,  overnight-style install.

This is the way I work.  I have everything installed except emacs (I
built/installed Xemacs long before FSF-emacs was available).  Every
morning before I start my work day I re-run setup to be sure I have
the most current release of everything.  Periodically I'll check with
setup to see if I'm missing any other packages.

Disk is cheap.  Network bandwidth is cheap.  Not being able to do
something because I failed to download a tool is annoying.



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in one big archive ?

[news]

On 05 Dec 2002, "Brian Gallew" <geek@burri.to> wrote:

> Disk is cheap.  Network bandwidth is cheap.

If its all so cheap then download everything and provide the 
service that you want for everyone else that wants it.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: [Mingw-users] cygwin Full download in one big archive ?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 06:17:48PM +0100, news@garydjones.mailshell.com wrote:
>On 05 Dec 2002, "Brian Gallew" <geek@burri.to> wrote:
>>Disk is cheap.  Network bandwidth is cheap.
>
>If its all so cheap then download everything and provide the service
>that you want for everyone else that wants it.

I don't recall him saying anything like "My time is cheap".

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in one big archive ?

[Robert Collins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1349 bytes --]

On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 01:39, Richard Campbell wrote:
> >Impractical. As I said, almost 100% of people won't want 100% of packages.
> 
> It might be interesting to poll in some way, considering how often this 
> comes up.  I suspect more than "almost 0%" might want a 1-button, 
> overnight-style install.

I agree with you with regards to what folk may want. The modular install
is about choice and efficiency. There is *no* reason that a 1-button
overnight-style install cannot be achieved using setup.exe. Patches
accepted gratefully.

With regards to having a monolithic download however...

Some back-of-a-postcard sums:

monolithic install
577MB install.
1 update to a package a week,
1 new 577MB install file created each week.
longest period without updating - 2 months.

this would mean an average of ~280MB per month downloading updates.


modular install
577MB total download size
1 update to a package a week,
1 new modular install (avg ~5MB) created each week.
longest period without updated - 2 months.

this would mean an average of ~20MB per month downloading updates.

Seems pretty clear to me, that for anyone on a slow link, or anyone
charged by volume, that the modular install is much more efficient.

Rob

-- 
---
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
---

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[FAQ?] Re: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in one big archive ?

[Charles Wilson]

Robert Collins wrote:
> Some back-of-a-postcard sums:
> 
> monolithic install
> 577MB install.
> 1 update to a package a week,
> 1 new 577MB install file created each week.
> longest period without updating - 2 months.
> 
> this would mean an average of ~280MB per month downloading updates.
> 
> 
> modular install
> 577MB total download size
> 1 update to a package a week,
> 1 new modular install (avg ~5MB) created each week.
> longest period without updated - 2 months.
> 
> this would mean an average of ~20MB per month downloading updates.
> 
> Seems pretty clear to me, that for anyone on a slow link, or anyone
> charged by volume, that the modular install is much more efficient.

Faulty analogy.  Most users would probably only download the monolithic 
tarball once, for their initial installation.  Then use setup.exe and 
update things in a modular fashion after that.

Mebbe the FAQ could include "Can't I just download all of cygwin at one 
time without using setup?"

Sure.  The easiest way is to get this (native windows) GUI port of wget:
   http://www.jensroesner.de/wgetgui/      (The GUI)
which needs
   http://space.tin.it/computer/hherold/   (the actual wget binary + ssl 
libraries)

[disclaimer: the software referenced here is not part of cygwin, not 
supported by us, talk to the authors of the programs if you have 
problems, yadda yadda yadda]

Install 'em, run the GUI ....

--------

If somebody (David?) writes up this FAQ, check 
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2002-07/msg00600.html and
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2002-07/msg00595.html for more detailed 
info on this GPL'ed software and step-by-step "click here, type this 
there" instructions for using wGetGui to grab cygwin.

--Chuck



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: [FAQ?] Re: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in one big archive ?

[Robert Collins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1146 bytes --]

On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 10:30, Charles Wilson wrote:
>

> > Seems pretty clear to me, that for anyone on a slow link, or anyone
> > charged by volume, that the modular install is much more efficient.
> 
> Faulty analogy.  Most users would probably only download the monolithic 
> tarball once, for their initial installation.  Then use setup.exe and 
> update things in a modular fashion after that.

I'm not about to actively maintain two forms of setup that are so
different. And until someone offers to do that, I think it is a
reasonable assumption to make that the install form you start with you
continue with.
 
Also, I supported having a 'install-in-one-hit-everything' in setup
earlier in my email, where you did not quote.

Now, for grabbing everything at once, there are many ways:
wget ~= setup ~= winwget ~= ftp mget ~= tool foo
and they are *all* orthogonal to the monolithic download discussion.

I'm trying to highlight the weakness's with a monolithic download, not
the pros and cons of a full-install strategy.

Rob


-- 
---
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
---

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [FAQ?] Re: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in one big archive ?

[Charles Wilson]

Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> I'm not about to actively maintain two forms of setup that are so
> different. And until someone offers to do that, I think it is a
> reasonable assumption to make that the install form you start with you
> continue with.

Errmm...I musta missed something.  I wasn't suggesting you do any such 
thing.

> Also, I supported having a 'install-in-one-hit-everything' in setup
> earlier in my email, where you did not quote.

Right, it wasn't germane to the "how the heck can I **download** 
everything" problem.  Setup, as we all know, is NOT a generic mirroring 
tool.

> Now, for grabbing everything at once, there are many ways:
> wget ~= setup ~= winwget ~= ftp mget ~= tool foo
> and they are *all* orthogonal to the monolithic download discussion.

Sortof.  I assumed <i>a priori</i> that a 557MB tarball is a bad idea. 
It was discussed in one of the two messages I posted a link to.  IIRC 
this whole thread started because somebody wanted to download the whole 
cygwin schlmeil in order to *inspect* the binaries or sources; not to 
install it.  And he didn't relish an afternoon's worth of point-n-click.

> I'm trying to highlight the weakness's with a monolithic download, not
> the pros and cons of a full-install strategy.

I thought "installation" wasn't the issue ANYWAY.  It was just 
*downloading*.  It's a given that we are NOT going to make 600MB 
tarballs, or daily-updated .iso's.  So, how to solve the original 
poster's problem (and address the somewhat squirrelly issue of modem users)?

I suggested using a a reasonable fascimile of a mirroring tool (e.g. 
wget, plus a GUI for the cmdline-challenged) to handle the *download*.

I didn't say (because I thought it was obvious) that IF one wanted to 
actually install cygwin -- which was NOT the case for the original 
poster who started this thread, I think -- you'd use setup.exe and point 
it at the nice local collection of files wget downloaded for you.  And 
then for updates, you'd point setup.exe back to the normal mirrors.

I was not, in any way, suggesting that setup learn how to parse a cygwin 
"installation" created by some moron unzipping a bunch of tarballs by 
hand.  No way.  Never.

--Chuck


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: [FAQ?] Re: [Mingw-users] Cygwin Full download in one big archive ?

[Robert Collins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 716 bytes --]

On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 11:09, Charles Wilson wrote:


> Sortof.  I assumed <i>a priori</i> that a 557MB tarball is a bad idea. 

Yep. And the original poster, was asserting that such a tarball is a
good idea. Thus my figures to show that it ain't - for the common case.


> I was not, in any way, suggesting that setup learn how to parse a cygwin 
> "installation" created by some moron unzipping a bunch of tarballs by 
> hand.  No way.  Never.

Whew :}. I didn't think *you* would suggest such a thing. I was more
worried about having the last word, so that the archives will show it to
be a bad thing :}.

Rob

-- 
---
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
---

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]