Hi again Rajko,
It should be "many" sorry for typo. I
mentioned the style where many
used to praise product and no word what are the limitations. More
details about methods to achieve download will be more than welcome.
talk about underlaying ideas will give everybody different feeling
The way you did it is OK for commercial software, where ideas how it
hidden from public.
Nothing at all is hidden from the public.
From the site:
Metalink is a simple XML (text)
format. Download one and open it with a text
editor, & most of it should be self explanatory. If you want to read the
long, boring Metalink 3.0 specification, here you go:
(I think you are looking for section 3.2).
Here's a .metalink (minus most <url>s for brevity). The client can only use
the information that's there. It's pretty straightforward.
OK. The problem is that with previously mentioned
,missing talk about
it gives feeling that whatever you offer is proprietary. If you would
anywhere that described method is patent free and content of web site
protected with some kind of opensource license than there will be no
Metalink is patent free, unlike BitTorrent. (BT is awesome and the best
thing to happen to the net since the web).
The content of my website is under Creative Commons Attribution License. I
believe this is the correct license for this type of thing, but I'm not very
familiar w/ licenses. If someone knows of a more suitable one, please let me
3) Downloads are verified for enhanced reliability.
-Nothing new for YaST users.
Cool. Not everyone uses or can use YaST in all situations :)
I agree. That is actually trivial and missing feature in many download
Yes, I am trying to encourage full file checksumming to be automated, as you
can see. All the clients support this now. It may not be much, but it
simplifies things for some people who aren't familiar with doing that.
The partial file/segment checksums are also available and I am encouraging
that as well - this will allow the automatic error correction. Some of the
clients are adding this now. I guess it isn't as simple as the full file
checksums. I don't know how far along aria2 is if at all, but if someone
wanted to submit a patch that might not hurt. (Might want to contact the
author or wait until the next release).
> I'm removing listed magnet clients from any computer and explain
> they should not install them again. Do you think that anything
same page will gain my trust?
I'm not sure what this means. Can you explain it more? Is there
untrustworthy about magnet clients? I wasn't
aware of that. Metalink
happens to be listed on the same page by
. If there is
something wrong with them, I will try to get removed from that page.
Google returns links like this:
Could be also something like this:
So after some time spent in research I can understand why OP didn't
my comment about magnet clients. It can be that it was just old version
hacked copies that gave me a lot of problems on few occasions.
Ok, glad you understand that bad clients that may have used magnet links
have no connection with metalink.
I actually do not disagree with idea and I stated that
more than one
your presentation of metalinks is missing details.
I would like that you give some technical background how it works and
legal status. Is it proprietary technology or opensource?
You are the first person to request details. I assume people really
interested read the spec I mentioned above. Most people don't care about
that much detail.
As I've mentioned before, metalink is not proprietary. I don't know how it
could be open source, since I don't offer any actual programs or source.
It's something developers have implemented in both proprietary and open
I have no problem with any technology as long as it is
works as described and the price is right :-) but I have problem with
black boxes that do something, but even author can't explain details.
is, looking to some other posts, not only my impression.
If you're familiar with download managers and checksums then you already
Obviously, there are no black boxes in the open source clients and a plain
text XML file!
The rsync should not be necessary. It is proof that
implementation is not good in all details.
BTW, I an use rsync alone and skip any repair.
rsync was offered as a temporary solution until aria2 can use the partial
file checksums for error correction.
Anyhow, at the moment I think, considering all the flaws of the current
implementation, it's still hands-down the top method I'd use. I
why. Fastest ever download speeds, and if you use rsync it's always
guaranteed. Again, not perfect, but still very very good for me.
I'd perhaps only ever have to do rsync 1 in 100 times.
The client can only go with what you give it. If it's downloading from
ftp/http, that's all its downloading from. There is just the automated
checksum at the end, which will tell you if there were errors. I suppose the
larger the file, the larger the chance of errors. If you're downloading an
ISO over 2, 4 or 8 hrs, chances are probably higher that you will have an
error in there somewhere. I'm sure there are lots of factors, but the bottom
line is that for most people errors and rare but unavoidable with ftp/http.
I've downloaded over a thousand files with metalinks, testing various stuff,
and have only had one checksum error. I guess that's a testament to the
quality of my connection. And thankfully it was a small couple hundred k
file, not a 3G monster ISO.
Once aria2 and other metalink clients support the partial file checksums,
all this will be moot. I can't afford to pay people to work on this, so they
will do it on their own time schedule. I'm sorry some people had problems,
especially the file overwrite bug that someone ran into.
Some other neat features which are still unsupported are inclusion of PGP
signatures and some other stuff.
(( Anthony Bryan
)) Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org