Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:57:02 +0100 From: Vince <jhary@unsane.co.uk> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports upgrade Message-ID: <461E026E.7090308@unsane.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <86lkgxzzx0.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <2488F872-59CF-48DE-9297-5250B1C6EFB4@gmail.com> <e14997e00704110315j754187b9v4be1cdbeedebca86@mail.gmail.com> <20070411124201.GB83347@atarininja.org> <499c70c0704112227p97a229fv2c6badb18ee61500@mail.gmail.com> <86lkgxzzx0.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > "Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri" <almarrie@gmail.com> writes: >> May I ask you why do you prefer portsnap over them? > > It's simpler to use, and a lot faster. It's also HTTP-based, which > makes it firewall-friendly, even in braindead corporate environments. > > DES Plus the saving in bandwidth for a large number of machines (I know bandwidth is cheap but still,) if you use a caching proxy. Oh and its cryptographically signed if thats a concern :) Vince
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?461E026E.7090308>