On Friday 04 January 2008, Robert Millan wrote: > You have to add bandwidth to the equation. I'd guess most setups can > spare more CPU than bandwidth. Anyway, it wouldn't be a problem if they > can happen in parallel.
I don't agree. For people with limited bandwidth we have alternative installation methods. I can tell significant differences between using gzip and bzip2 on several of the systems I use. So far I have seen no convincing arguments why we should slow down _all_ installations *and* increase the memory footprint of the installer for some completely unspecified size decrease of packages. I can see why we'd want to suggest maintainers to use bzip2 compression for _some_ packages [1], I cannot see why we'd even want to move _all_ packages (including the base system) to use bzip2. [1] Packages where the improved compression leads to significant relative _and_ absolute reduction of their size.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
