p2p
I am a member!
Should apt-p2p be included in future releases by default? Guess it would unload repo mirrors and can be faster then usual apt-get if all Trisquel users are on p2p.
Am I wrong?
I am a member!
Considering that not all users have access to a broadband connection, be that for geographic reasons or by economic reasons; I believe it's safe to conclude that the answer to your question is NO.
I am a member!
I only read a brief description of what this is although can't imagine it would cause a problem for non-broadband users. Is there no detection built-in for these situations?
I am a member!
To me, it's not so much whether a user has broadband or not, but rather the idea that the user should give consent for their computer to be used in a manner like this. I'm all for the idea of apt-p2p and I may even try it out on my machines, but it seems a bit underhanded to me to require users to opt-out of being used as a peer.
Consider that a new user installing a fresh instance of Trisquel won't even know this is operating right under her nose, yet is it using her network resources, CPU and RAM. It would leave fewer resources for the processes she knowingly wishes to use, and if she is billed per-megabyte of internet usage, causes her to pay extra for something she doesn't willingly enable or even know anything about.
Sure, make it an option, encourage users to opt into it, just like users are encouraged to seed the ISO torrent. I believe it's counter to one of the principles of free software, namely that we as computer owners are sovereign over our hardware, to turn this on by default, even if for a noble cause.
Indeed: sovereignty is above efficiency.
This sense of hierarchy (ethics above statistics, the human above the computer) is what makes Free Software the true way, other than merely open source ways.