On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 10:40:20PM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 11:29:32PM -0400, Carl Schmidt wrote: > > 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? > > The temporary space required to do the decompression is what I am > assuming is being reference, although I'm not sure how accurate that > argument is.
I did a little test to see how that works. If you gzip a file and gunzip it and follow the sizes of each file it seems that the file being de-compressed decreases in size while the new file increases in size. I think it is safe to say that gzip does not require temporary space, except an extra inode for de-compression. I could be wrong though. > > 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. > > Winzip supports tar and gz, winrar supports bzip2 > > > 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'), > > I did not think distance was a requirement for cable modem, but I do > agree with your logic that not everyone has broadband. The distance argument is probably not relevant. I remember a long time ago some person from the UK complaining about having to use ISDN because NTL did not provide cable at that distance, or something. I honestly do not know about that. >From Qwest: <<<EOD Technical Specs for DOCSIS Cable Modem: [...] * Supports round trip distances of up to 200 miles EOD Finally, I am sorry that this seems to be completely un-related to the original topic. I did not follow it thoroughly. -- Carl Schmidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
