Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:29:32 -0400 From: Carl Schmidt <carl@slackerbsd.org> To: Makoto Matsushita <matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF") Message-ID: <20021014032931.GB23539@carbon.slackerbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20021014114320A.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> References: <3DA9D95D.C1319A72@mindspring.com> <20021013205915.GK10829@hades.hell.gr> <3DA9EA62.D337E8A0@mindspring.com> <20021014114320A.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 11:43:20AM +0900, Makoto Matsushita wrote: > tlambert2> That's 3.4 hours saved on a 28.8K modem download time, > tlambert2> overall... a 14% reduction in size. > > The percentage doesn't matter. If ISO image is compressed, user who > downloads the image may de-compress that image to burn (I don't know > any about the burner softwares which support compressed ISO image). > What's happen if there is no space to make de-compressed image on a HDD? I do not follow this. If the user can not fit a non-compressed image on their drive then they certainly will not be downloading a non- compressed image nor a compressed image hence rendering this whole discussion moot for that user...it seems so to me at least. Maybe I am not seeing something? 3.4 hours is a lot of time on a dial-up connection (granted it is not a one size fits all period of time). > Also, the image size is still over 200MB; it is too large to fetch via > 28.8k link IMHO (saving 3.4hours doesn't help either). There are lots > of broadband connection services we can temporary buy (at airport, > starbucks, etc), so why not use it for large file downloads :-) I disagree with the first sentence; see my reply above. I simply disagree that 3.4 hours is not helpful. Whether we think the size is too large for dial-up or not people will still download it. And 200MB is absolutely nothing compared to what people put up with for full-size distribution ISOs. You could argue that not everyone has gzip (I would assume primarily a Windows user). As far as I know there is a DOS version of gzip. This would be where you might need both types of images (compressed and not compressed), and that is something up to the snapshots people. One might argue that Mr. Lambert is simply speculating that anyone has a 28.8k connection anymore. What are the odds that everyone fits this: a: they live close enough to a provider to get broadband (see 'b'), b: they can afford broadband, c: they live close enough to a Starbucks and/or airport, and d: is going to put out that kind of effort to do a-c when they can just as well hope that the snapshot server(s) have the space and power to compress an image so that they can stay in the comfort of their home with their 28.8k Internet connection? I think more than maybe is accounted for. I liken it to simply forgetting about the "others"...sort of like for a long time the blind, deaf, et cetera were left out of most people's thoughts when it came to accessibility (whether that is with computers or physical access to something). I think the FTP installation should be just fine for people with a dial-up connection if they really really really want to have -CURRENT. I've used it a few times for getting snapshots with no harm done. If the snapshot server(s) are not up to task then all of this is useless discussion. Someone ``in the know'' should simply get up and say "hey, our servers can not handle this; end of story" instead of speculating. No one has said that yet that I am aware of. As you might be able to tell I have no idea who actually runs the snapshot server(s) nor am I aware of how many, if there are more than one, there are. Sorry. Of course that's all just my opinion; I could be wrong. -- Carl Schmidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021014032931.GB23539>