From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 12 09:57:04 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A31E016A402 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:57:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhary@unsane.co.uk) Received: from unsane.co.uk (www.unsane.co.uk [85.233.185.162]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 390BD13C465 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:57:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhary@unsane.co.uk) Received: from [192.168.10.217] (150.117-84-212.staticip.namesco.net [212.84.117.150]) (authenticated bits=0) by unsane.co.uk (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3C9uiPl075829 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:56:44 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jhary@unsane.co.uk) Message-ID: <461E026E.7090308@unsane.co.uk> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:57:02 +0100 From: Vince User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070327) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <2488F872-59CF-48DE-9297-5250B1C6EFB4@gmail.com> <20070411124201.GB83347@atarininja.org> <499c70c0704112227p97a229fv2c6badb18ee61500@mail.gmail.com> <86lkgxzzx0.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <86lkgxzzx0.fsf@dwp.des.no> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: Ports upgrade X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:57:04 -0000 Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > "Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri" writes: >> May I ask you why do you prefer portsnap over them? > > It's simpler to use, and a lot faster. It's also HTTP-based, which > makes it firewall-friendly, even in braindead corporate environments. > > DES Plus the saving in bandwidth for a large number of machines (I know bandwidth is cheap but still,) if you use a caching proxy. Oh and its cryptographically signed if thats a concern :) Vince