Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 23:05:35 -0600 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Tony Kimball <alk@compound.east.sun.com> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.dk.tfs.com>, ctm-announce@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does CTM have a future? Message-ID: <l03010d03af4940b2defe@[208.2.87.4]> In-Reply-To: <5444.857948335@critter.dk.tfs.com> References: Your message of "Sun, 09 Mar 1997 14:23:03 CST." <199703092023.OAA24892@pobox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199703092023.OAA24892@pobox.com>, Tony Kimball writes: >C'mon, be honest: If CTM has no future, please announce the fact. >I'm pretty suspicious, after its recent history. I don't see where you get that arrogant attitude. Just because one machine fails and it takes us a couple days to replace it is certainly not any reason to claim the death of CTM. By your reasoning, I should say the same of CVSup. cvsup.freebsd.org has been down longer than ctm was out. If more people would realize that, for the regular users, CTM is more efficient in the use of project resources because it is "push" technology rather than "pull" technology, it might be easier to get additional resources committed so that we have a redundant distribution system. "Push" technologies scale in a way that the "pull" technologies can never match. When you use a "pull" technology, each customer must have a custom distribution produced. The "push" technologies have the advantage that the "product" is produced only once and then distributed. CTM also has the advantage that it is never necessary to have a direct link between the server and the client. The "store-and-forward" nature of this technology allows clients to be "connected" by VERY slow connections, including "sneaker net" (write a file on a floppy and run it down the hall or across town). The same cannot be said of sup.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03010d03af4940b2defe>