«

-=rjh=- <> wrote:

>EMB wrote:
>> JC wrote:
>>
>>> The next release of Open Office is out now if anyone is interested.
>>
>>
>> There's a local mirror at
>> http://files2.inspire.net.nz/index.php?category=92
>>
>
>Also, those who are able might like to try BT, it is really fast at
>present - I'm getting 25kB/s which is my limit. We need to support legal
>p2p downloads whenever possible.
>
>http://distribution.openoffice.org/p2p/

You are correct about BT. Downloaded it in 50 min's on Orcon's 256K
plan. The FTP site gave nothing..

MarkH wrote:
> -=rjh=- <> wrote in news:43ab329a$:
>
>
>>EMB wrote:
>>
>>>JC wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The next release of Open Office is out now if anyone is interested.
>>>
>>>
>>>There's a local mirror at
>>>http://files2.inspire.net.nz/index.php?category=92
>>>
>>
>>Also, those who are able might like to try BT, it is really fast at
>>present - I'm getting 25kB/s which is my limit. We need to support legal
>>p2p downloads whenever possible.
>
>
> Why exactly? What are you thinking the use of a torrent instead of an FTP
> site will do?

Two main reasons, really. Firstly, there is a widespread assumption that
p2p is only or mainly used for downloading illegally. If BT is ever
challenged in court, the more existing legal use of it will help its
case. More existing legal use of it will also convince more
organisations to consider offering torrents of their products.

Secondly, why should somebody who publishes something for free bear the
entire cost of shipping the data? I'm happy to contribute, too.

Admittedly, in this case there is a good nz mirror, and the load on it
isn't likely to be great, but that isn't always the case.

>
> In NZ the fast flat rate broadband that some other countries have does not
> exist, this makes torrents a poor choice when there is another option.

For who? The person downloading, or the person publishing something for
free?
>
> On Orcon's UBS 2Mb plan the use of torrents will generate more traffic than
> with FTP and be slower, so it will cost more in terms of both money and
> time.

But I'm on an unlimited plan. Costs me nothing.

Even if paying @ $10.00/10GB, that will be ~$1.00 for one download of
OO.o and 9 complete uploads. Not bad for a free office suite.

It *does* generate more traffic for Orcon (plus, they could cache the
file anyway) but I'm happy with how Orcon deal with p2p at present. They
can use p2p traffic to even out traffic.

>
> On Xtra's 2Mb plan you only get 10GB, so using torrents will use up that
> 10GB faster.

Well, hey - what is broadband *for*? I think that shows the stupidity of
the current offerings, more than anything.

>
> On a 256kb flat rate plan that can achieve 32k download with a torrent then
> there is no real disadvantage to using a torrent, but there is no real
> advantage either.

For me, there is an advantage, it increases my share ratio. It is my
preferred method of downloading even when ftp is available. I'm rarely
in a hurry, my system is always on, it doesn't cost me any more, it
helps the publisher. I'm also able to easily throttle the download
speed, slightly harder to do using ftp and http.

Looks like a win-win-win situation. To me - YMMV.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:32:19 +1300, EMB wrote:

> JC wrote:
>> The next release of Open Office is out now if anyone is interested.
>
> There's a local mirror at http://files2.inspire.net.nz/index.php?category=92

Which only has 2.0.0 by my viewing. ;-(

True, but try this link...
http://downloads.planetmirror.com/pu...el_install.exe


"Gordon" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:32:19 +1300, EMB wrote:
>
>> JC wrote:
>>> The next release of Open Office is out now if anyone is interested.
>>
>> There's a local mirror at
>> http://files2.inspire.net.nz/index.php?category=92
>
> Which only has 2.0.0 by my viewing. ;-(

-=rjh=- <> wrote in news:43ab7c27$:

> MarkH wrote:
>>
>> Why exactly? What are you thinking the use of a torrent instead of
>> an FTP site will do?
>
> Two main reasons, really. Firstly, there is a widespread assumption
> that p2p is only or mainly used for downloading illegally. If BT is
> ever challenged in court, the more existing legal use of it will help
> its case. More existing legal use of it will also convince more
> organisations to consider offering torrents of their products.

I am happy for those with flat-rate connections to use it if they wish.

> Secondly, why should somebody who publishes something for free bear
> the entire cost of shipping the data? I'm happy to contribute, too.

Well, if your plan is flat rate then why not, I suppose.

> Admittedly, in this case there is a good nz mirror, and the load on it
> isn't likely to be great, but that isn't always the case.

I almost always use mirrors for FTP, I generally find that the Aussie
ones are as fast as the NZ ones.

>> In NZ the fast flat rate broadband that some other countries have
>> does not exist, this makes torrents a poor choice when there is
>> another option.
>
> For who? The person downloading, or the person publishing something
> for free?

For me if there is a choice between an Aussie mirror that I can download
from at well over 200kB or a Torrent that will struggle to reach 30kB on
my Orcon plan then I will use the FTP mirror site thanks.

>> On Orcon's UBS 2Mb plan the use of torrents will generate more
>> traffic than with FTP and be slower, so it will cost more in terms of
>> both money and time.
>
> But I'm on an unlimited plan. Costs me nothing.

Unfortunately the unlimited plans are hard to find on the fast
broadband.

> Even if paying @ $10.00/10GB, that will be ~$1.00 for one download of
> OO.o and 9 complete uploads. Not bad for a free office suite.

For me the monthly traffic is normally 80-90GB, using torrents would
increase my bills noticeably.

> It *does* generate more traffic for Orcon (plus, they could cache the
> file anyway) but I'm happy with how Orcon deal with p2p at present.
> They can use p2p traffic to even out traffic.

Yes, but the more bandwidth I use the less there is available to others
(Thanks Telecom for the crippling of Xtra's competition) at least until
the NZ regulators grow some testes.

>> On Xtra's 2Mb plan you only get 10GB, so using torrents will use up
>> that 10GB faster.
>
> Well, hey - what is broadband *for*? I think that shows the stupidity
> of the current offerings, more than anything.

Yes, Xtra's plans suck big time.

>> On a 256kb flat rate plan that can achieve 32k download with a
>> torrent then there is no real disadvantage to using a torrent, but
>> there is no real advantage either.
>
> For me, there is an advantage, it increases my share ratio. It is my
> preferred method of downloading even when ftp is available. I'm rarely
> in a hurry, my system is always on, it doesn't cost me any more, it
> helps the publisher. I'm also able to easily throttle the download
> speed, slightly harder to do using ftp and http.
>
> Looks like a win-win-win situation. To me - YMMV.

Downloading a torrent to increase your share ratio? That really doesn't
seem to make sense.

If it costs you no different then there is no harm using it.

Helping the publisher sounds very kind, can you back up your implication
that the publishers are having problems because so many people are
downloading from the mirror FTP sites? If the use of FTP is a burden on
them then I may be willing to consider using torrents.

For me the ability to throttle downloads that I can complete in less
than 10 minutes is not a big deal.

Clearly my mileage does vary.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade

In article <dof2g6$cgt$>, says...
> JC wrote:
> > The next release of Open Office is out now if anyone is interested.
>
> There's a local mirror at http://files2.inspire.net.nz/index.php?category=92

Cheers, nice to find a local link - goin' good too - 240KB/s - from 250
available over my cable connection.

--
Duncan

MarkH wrote:
> -=rjh=- <> wrote in news:43ab7c27$:
>
>
>>MarkH wrote:
>>
>>>Why exactly? What are you thinking the use of a torrent instead of
>>>an FTP site will do?
>>
>>Two main reasons, really. Firstly, there is a widespread assumption
>>that p2p is only or mainly used for downloading illegally. If BT is
>>ever challenged in court, the more existing legal use of it will help
>>its case. More existing legal use of it will also convince more
>>organisations to consider offering torrents of their products.
>
>
> I am happy for those with flat-rate connections to use it if they wish.

Thank you. I'll continue to do so.

>
>
>>Secondly, why should somebody who publishes something for free bear
>>the entire cost of shipping the data? I'm happy to contribute, too.
>
>
> Well, if your plan is flat rate then why not, I suppose.
>
>
>>Admittedly, in this case there is a good nz mirror, and the load on it
>>isn't likely to be great, but that isn't always the case.
>
>
> I almost always use mirrors for FTP, I generally find that the Aussie
> ones are as fast as the NZ ones.

Somebody is paying to provide the mirror service - I always use mirrors
where BT is not available. But BT is my preferred choice for popular
files larger than ~20MB.
>
>
>>>In NZ the fast flat rate broadband that some other countries have
>>>does not exist, this makes torrents a poor choice when there is
>>>another option.
>>
>>For who? The person downloading, or the person publishing something
>>for free?
>
>
> For me if there is a choice between an Aussie mirror that I can download
> from at well over 200kB or a Torrent that will struggle to reach 30kB on
> my Orcon plan then I will use the FTP mirror site thanks.

But, what about the publisher? Do you not consider them at all?
>
>
>>>On Orcon's UBS 2Mb plan the use of torrents will generate more
>>>traffic than with FTP and be slower, so it will cost more in terms of
>>>both money and time.
>>
>>But I'm on an unlimited plan. Costs me nothing.
>
>
> Unfortunately the unlimited plans are hard to find on the fast
> broadband.
>
>
>>Even if paying @ $10.00/10GB, that will be ~$1.00 for one download of
>>OO.o and 9 complete uploads. Not bad for a free office suite.
>
>
> For me the monthly traffic is normally 80-90GB, using torrents would
> increase my bills noticeably.

You are saying you do 80-90GB/mo, without usuing torrents at all? What
are you downloading?
>
>
>>It *does* generate more traffic for Orcon (plus, they could cache the
>>file anyway) but I'm happy with how Orcon deal with p2p at present.
>>They can use p2p traffic to even out traffic.
>
>
> Yes, but the more bandwidth I use the less there is available to others

No, that is my point - p2p allows Orcon to fill up any available
bandwidth as it becomes available. Because p2p isn't required to be done
in realtime, they have a lot of flexibility in how they deal with the
traffic it generates.

> (Thanks Telecom for the crippling of Xtra's competition) at least until
> the NZ regulators grow some testes.
>
>
>>>On Xtra's 2Mb plan you only get 10GB, so using torrents will use up
>>>that 10GB faster.
>>
>>Well, hey - what is broadband *for*? I think that shows the stupidity
>>of the current offerings, more than anything.
>
>
> Yes, Xtra's plans suck big time.

Not Xtra - pretty much all the current plans aren't looking at how
people should be using "broadband" - the offerings are all looking from
the provider's point of view (in this case, Telecom, for pretty much
everybody). Even the competition only has to match Telecom's offerings,
nothing more.

A 2MB/s plan with a 1GB cap and 128kb/s upstream is just a cruel joke.
>
>
>>>On a 256kb flat rate plan that can achieve 32k download with a
>>>torrent then there is no real disadvantage to using a torrent, but
>>>there is no real advantage either.
>>
>>For me, there is an advantage, it increases my share ratio. It is my
>>preferred method of downloading even when ftp is available. I'm rarely
>>in a hurry, my system is always on, it doesn't cost me any more, it
>>helps the publisher. I'm also able to easily throttle the download
>>speed, slightly harder to do using ftp and http.
>>
>>Looks like a win-win-win situation. To me - YMMV.
>
>
> Downloading a torrent to increase your share ratio? That really doesn't
> seem to make sense.

My share ratio over the past day or so is ~20. Downloading a popular
file early means more people will come along and upload it (or parts of
it) from me while it is still popular. Offering files that nobody wants
won't increase your share ratio. The better your share ratio, the better
your performance on torrent networks. While my overall ratio is only
1.5, many files are up around 6-8 (like nerdTV, Blue, Revelations, for
example).

>
> If it costs you no different then there is no harm using it.
>
> Helping the publisher sounds very kind, can you back up your implication
> that the publishers are having problems because so many people are
> downloading from the mirror FTP sites? If the use of FTP is a burden on
> them then I may be willing to consider using torrents.

Sure, see one of the posts above in this very thread.

Apart from the cost of sending data, some files have very short, peak
demands, which can mean that some servers have trouble coping. For those
situations, torrents are ideal. Where torrents don't work, is where
files have a long life with few downloads, ftp works better for these.

Many of the files I download are published for free by hobbyists or
others who generate little or no income from their endeavours. So why
should they also have to pay for me to download a copy of their work?
After all, it is possible I might not even like it, so I don't want to
pay up front.

Often these files are announced on mailing lists that I am on, so demand
has a short but very high peak, ideal for using torrents. To pay for ftp
/http hosting of such short but high traffic demands is not going to be
cheap, which is why these publishers usually ask and prefer people to
use BT. If I want them to continue with what they are doing, (and I do)
I need to avoid causing them any grief, so I use BT.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 10:59:32 +1300, -=rjh=- wrote:

> A 2MB/s plan with a 1GB cap and 128kb/s upstream is just a cruel joke.

It shows the rather poor calibre of the ISPs that offer it, IMHO.

Broadband should be full speed (up and down!), uncapped, flat rate, and at
a reasonable price.

Anything less than this is not true Broadband as that technology can
deliver.


Undeniably Sluttish

--
Free software on every PC on every desk.

-=rjh=- <> wrote in news::

> MarkH wrote:
>> -=rjh=- <> wrote in
>> news:43ab7c27$:
>>
>>
>>>MarkH wrote:

> But, what about the publisher? Do you not consider them at all?

I have no reason to believe that the publisher is having any problem
with my use of FTP mirrors.

>> For me the monthly traffic is normally 80-90GB, using torrents would
>> increase my bills noticeably.
>
> You are saying you do 80-90GB/mo, without usuing torrents at all? What
> are you downloading?

I am not sure that it matters to everyone else what I am downloading.
But my flatmate does actually download a bit through torrents.
Personally I download around 30-40GB in a typical month. Some of my
downloads are Linux apps, updates and distros - usually from Aussie
mirror FTP sites. Some of my downloads are from www.easynews.com, which
I pay for.

>> Yes, but the more bandwidth I use the less there is available to
>> others
>
> No, that is my point - p2p allows Orcon to fill up any available
> bandwidth as it becomes available. Because p2p isn't required to be
> done in realtime, they have a lot of flexibility in how they deal with
> the traffic it generates.

If you read the posts on this newsgroup you would realize that there are
people finding the torrents too slow with Orcon. This is because there
is too much demand on the system for the bandwidth allocation from
Telecom.

>> Helping the publisher sounds very kind, can you back up your
>> implication that the publishers are having problems because so many
>> people are downloading from the mirror FTP sites? If the use of FTP
>> is a burden on them then I may be willing to consider using torrents.
>
> Sure, see one of the posts above in this very thread.

I don't recall any evidence, only your assertion that torrents
alleviated the strain on the server. If you wait until the files have
propagated through all the mirrors then you would normally find that the
FTP servers are coping well. The whole idea of the mirror sites is to
spread the load.

> Apart from the cost of sending data, some files have very short, peak
> demands, which can mean that some servers have trouble coping. For
> those situations, torrents are ideal. Where torrents don't work, is
> where files have a long life with few downloads, ftp works better for
> these.
>
> Many of the files I download are published for free by hobbyists or
> others who generate little or no income from their endeavours. So why
> should they also have to pay for me to download a copy of their work?
> After all, it is possible I might not even like it, so I don't want to
> pay up front.
>
> Often these files are announced on mailing lists that I am on, so
> demand has a short but very high peak, ideal for using torrents. To
> pay for ftp /http hosting of such short but high traffic demands is
> not going to be cheap, which is why these publishers usually ask and
> prefer people to use BT. If I want them to continue with what they are
> doing, (and I do) I need to avoid causing them any grief, so I use BT.

My method of not worrying about downloading a Linux distro on the day
that it is released works just as well for taking the pressure off the
FTP servers. When I download the file a week later the servers have no
problem giving me full speed (around 250kbyte/sec).


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 06:04:43 +0000, MarkH wrote:

> I don't recall any evidence, only your assertion that torrents
> alleviated the strain on the server. If you wait until the files have
> propagated through all the mirrors then you would normally find that the
> FTP servers are coping well. The whole idea of the mirror sites is to
> spread the load.

And the whole idea of using torrents is that mirrors are not needed,
because the load is shared by all persons who want a copy of whatever it
is that the torrent is for.

torrents enable the providers of Free material to easily distribute it
worldwide without requiring the massive bandwidth and expense of a huge
server/mirror infrastructure.

So you don't want the cost of the upload. Now imagine the cost of millions
of downloads all centralised on the one huge server/mirror infrastructure.

Now do you see the advantage?


Undeniably Sluttish

--
Free software on every PC on every desk.