Same issues for me. I actually use an older thing that I know works instead of using zeroconf etc anymore.
Others may just walk away from Pharo silently. Look in an age of Docker and multi gig successful downloads, a couple megs sjouldn't be that hard. S3 or whatever works for millions of podcasts, BinTray also works nicely etc. Shouldn't some consortium money channeled in there? Phil On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 November 2017 at 20:18, Christophe Demarey < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > Le 23 nov. 2017 à 12:34, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> a écrit : >> > >> > >> > >> >> Am 23.11.2017 um 11:39 schrieb Christophe Demarey < >> [email protected]>: >> >> >> >> Hi Norbert, >> >> >> >> I understand your point of view that others probably share. >> >> I also agree the situation is very bad: Inria took too much time to >> investigate the problem and now, renater also … >> >> The question is: would it be really better outside Inria? Maybe ... >> maybe not … >> > >> > Maybe that is the point. It is not a question if it works better >> outside because it will. The problem we have is so serious that it will be >> hard to find elsewhere. I can only repeat: It is not the download that >> fails which TCP wise means that exactly the thing is downloaded that inria >> offered. So something below the web server is broken and most probably they >> have a corrupt storage solution meaning only if you give it broken to the >> web server the broken thing can be transported in a sane manner. >> >> I’m not confident with the diagnostic. >> I never encountered this problem > > > > The problem seems geo-specific. So you may never personally observe the > problem. Of course that can make it near-impossible for yourself to > troubleshoot. > So consider the engineering principal... "If you can't solve the problem, > change the problem." > > > cheers -ben >
