3 ms·
I remain unconvinced. If github goes down, it goes down for everyones projects. If everyone ran their own servers, only one or two packages would go down at a t
by fartcannon 5y ago
I remain unconvinced. If github goes down, it goes down for everyones projects. If everyone ran their own servers, only one or two packages would go down at a time. So instead of 100% its like 0.1%. And since they're simpler, as per OPs comment, they'd stay up longer. So a distributed git, as it was originally intended to be used, is more robust than a single point of failure like github.
Perhaps githubs value is elsewhere.
- notriddle 5y agoFor a lot of use cases, there really isn’t any important difference between 100% and 0.1%. If any of the source tarballs are unavailable, then I can’t produce a build, and the fact that some of them are available isn’t much consolation. I’m blocked either way. Especially for an organization like Arch Linux, the solution is really obvious; maintain your own mirror. Debian and Fedora do it, so can they.
- fartcannon 5y agoJust to clarify, if 100% of all packages go down, thats much worse than 100% of just your needed packages. But I agree: mirrors is the key!