Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:02:15 +0200 From: Ruben de Groot <mail25@bzerk.org> To: SoloCDM <deedsmis@aculink.net>, "FreeBSD-Questions (Request)" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. RedHat Message-ID: <20031002070215.GA52717@ei.bzerk.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0310012204540.16155-100000@cdm01.deedsmiscentral.net> References: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0310012040460.811-100000@cdm01.deedsmiscentral.net> <200310012305.46092.tbstep@tampabay.rr.com> <Pine.LNX.4.50.0310012204540.16155-100000@cdm01.deedsmiscentral.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 10:27:05PM -0600, SoloCDM typed: > On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Todd Stephens wrote: > > > On Wednesday 01 October 2003 10:42 pm, SoloCDM wrote: > > > > > Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat > > > compared to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the files were larger > > > with FreeBSD and its tarballs. > > > > Not sure what you mean by that "its tarballs". > > Most of the packages are tar-ed (so to speak -- into balls; ergo: > tarballs), which makes them larger (they usually install to many types > of operating systems and that makes them large), the RPMs are strictly > for RPM based OSs, which makes them small. I don't know where you got this idea, but it's false. FreeBSD packages consist of tarred and compressed binaries and are generally not larger then their counterparts in the (Red Hat) Linux world.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031002070215.GA52717>