[arch-general] 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki

[Matthew Gyurgyik]

  On 09/16/2010 02:59 PM, Nathan Wayde wrote:
> On 16/09/10 19:39, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote:
> [..]
>> Ok a few things here....
>>
>> 1. There are a *few* instances where having a local mirror is warranted
>
> not sure where you were going with that but i feel like you've left a 
> bit off of that sentence.
>
>> 2. There are many, many, many packages that are in the repos that *you*
>> don't use! Every time you download one of these packages it is wasted
>> bandwidth!
>
> you don't get to tell anyone how to use their bandwidth.
>
>> 3. Mirror bandwidth is not free! Every time you are downloading unused
>> packages you are wasting the mirrors money! Why waste money? (Keep point
>> 1 in mind)
>
> since i already payed for that bandwidth and utilize it for other 
> purposes it is in fact free.
You most certainly do not pay for the Mirror's bandwidth! Just look at 
this article: http://lwn.net/Articles/178618/
>
>> 4. @Fess you and a few other people do not make the community.
>
> not sure what point you're trying to make here
>
>> 5. The majority of the community will agree that hosting a local mirror
>> is silly considering that there are alternatives!
>
> the majority of people at least in the western cultures will agree 
> that paedophilia is sick. the majority of these people don't know what 
> paedophilia is. again not sure where you're going with that so i 
> thought I'd make some wild pointless claims as well.
>
>> 6. I am quite sure that mirror operators are not and will not be happy
>> with users downloading gigs of data a month so they can have their own
>> local mirror.
>
> when you become a mirror operator or bring actual evidence to the 
> table you will have a say in this.
Again look here: http://lwn.net/Articles/178618/ or ask any admin in 
charge of bandwidth operations.
Aaron if you are reading this, would mind sharing the bandwidth cost for 
the arch servers?
>
>> 7. Remember, the local mirrors are generously mirroring for us. They are
>> under *no obligation* to do so! Treat them with respect!
>
> this doesn't make any sense.
>
>> 8. If point 1 applies, then those people should be more than capable of
>> producing their own scripts.
>>
>>
>>
>
> we are. but you see, the point you decided to side-step is that we're 
> being told that the existing script was bad, now, if it was bad fair 
> enough but no-one can(or will) tell us what was so wrong about it; 
> result: you're now forcing everyone that needs to create their own 
> script to do so and thus risk causing the same problems the old script 
> cause because as I've stated multiple times - no-one is telling us(me) 
> what the problems are with that script. it's all well and good to say 
> this or that is bad but if you're not going to tell anyone what's bad 
> about it then we'd all be better off if you hadn't opened your mouth 
> at all.