The Piney wrote:
If any new scripts that do delete files are added, a disclaimer or Warning! could be added to the download locations or even put into the script before starting any process. I can understand why you may not be comfortable with it.
The problem is less relevant for users that actually *read* (although, even after reading, mistakes happen
). But newbies and "lazy" users (and there are too-many out there
) tend to "trust" that everything is going to work as "they" expect, with no mistakes, no errors, no misunderstandings, and that "their files" are %100 safe, no matter what, no back up needed.
I wouldn't be surprised if a user were to use a script (or two) to download some files and then patch their previous UBCD with those downloaded files, just to sign up in the forum to complain and ask how to recover his files or prior functionality.
The Piney wrote:
If you create the xdelta files and upload those a day or so ahead of the ISO release, those of us that seed the torrents could carry a bit more of the load.
I'm not against the idea, but in practical terms there seems to be no need. In some occasions, Victor
has even released the ISO images to the http/ftp mirrors before posting the torrent, and AFAIK it was all OK anyway. Also popular software repositories have UBCD almost immediately available just a few hours after release.
The issue, IMHO, is more related to users downloading hundreds of MiB when there are just a few MiB of relevant difference.
The xdelta method is not ideal for UBCD either; I just mentioned it because Victor
used to use it in the past in certain circumstances.
The Piney wrote:
On the previous subject (deleting files), xdelta deletes and replaces files doesn't it? A vanilla UBCD ISO needs to be used with the xdelta file for the hash to come out right AFAIK. Wouldn't a customized version get messed up?
Indeed. xdelta would be worth only if all the following conditions are met:
- The user has the prior version of UBCD as originally distributed; and,
- The user downloads and applies the xdelta diff to the prior version so to obtain the new one; and,
- The xdelta diff is relatively small.
The last point is relevant because providing a diff (whether xdelta or in any other format / method) also requires resources and it is not as easy as downloading the whole ISO image and moving on. So the bandwidth users would save (by not having to download the whole ISO image) has to be meaningful.
Although the risk of messing up with the xdelta method indeed exists, the newbies and lazy ones would tend to avoid it. They would tend to just download the whole ISO. Which brings up the simpler (and already-available) solution... torrents.
Similarly to xdelta, a user can copy the prior ISO image file (as originally released, and even if not so), and point the new torrent to this copy. The new torrent will accept the pieces that are an exact match, and download the ones that are not.
This torrent method would be much more efficient if the files (of the UBCD ISO image) would be already expanded, i.e. one torrent including each individual file and directory structure of UBCD, instead of one torrent of one ISO image.
In past discussions, Victor
has been clear about his preference towards distributing one (and only one) whole ISO image. In the past, I have suggested the possibility of not including the antivirus databases, thus leaving the task for users (by means of the included scripts, among other available methods).
So, IMHO, a torrent with the UBCD directory structure and all files would be the easiest solution. Users wanting to build a new ISO image based on the new set of files, could use the ubcd2iso scripts.
The caveat of the torrent method is that the user "needs", either a copy of the UBCD structure (or the ISO image), or to "disconnect" the torrent from the UBCD structure. This is not a technical requirement, but more of a practical one. Imagine having the UBCD structure and working from it, without a copy. Then, intentionally or not, the torrent is started. Whichever change the user might had performed would be overwritten by the torrent trying to download new pieces that are no longer a match. OTOH, this is a caveat of xdelta (and of almost any other method) too, in some form of another.
Since probably Victor
would like to keep providing the whole ISO image (from the http/ftp mirrors and with a p2p torrent), the next UBCD release announcement could include a second torrent with the individual files and directory structure, perhaps in the forum only (not in the main download page).
BTW, the UBCD wiki already includes an example of how this torrent method would be used. See (the last section of) http://wiki.ultimatebootcd.com/index.php?title=Tutorials:Calculating_Hash_Sum
Are you familiar with GIT?
I think git would be too much. Victor
would need to have a public git repo (and maintain it), and users would need to know how to use it. See my previous paragraphs for an alternative possibility.