> Hi,
>
> Also, 11M may not be a typical install. I get a far higher number:
> __> du -s /usr/doc
> 92026 /usr/doc
>
> Uncompressing this is very likely to annoy me.
11M was for my old 386 box (no X installed) - I'm only using about
200M total on that system. That works out to ab
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> This is a non-standard extension of the http protocol!
I support your idea of using a WWW server for documentation, but you're
saying wrong things and making people be angry with you.. =)
The HTTP protocol DOESN'T rely on extensions. No HTTP comp
On 29 Jun 1997, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>> "Christoph" == Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Christoph> This wont work as we already have said again and
>Christoph> again. You are modifying the HTTP protocol with this
>Christoph> and creating a new .html.gz extension
Hi,
Also, 11M may not be a typical install. I get a far higher number:
__> du -s /usr/doc
92026 /usr/doc
Uncompressing this is very likely to annoy me.
manoj
--
The Lump Law: If we want to learn anything, we mustn't try to learn
everything. --anonymous
Manoj Srivasta
> "Christoph" == Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christoph> This wont work as we already have said again and
Christoph> again. You are modifying the HTTP protocol with this
Christoph> and creating a new .html.gz extension in essence. And
Christoph> sometimes the w
Hi,
>>"Christoph" == Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You can't fix the browsers, because we don't have the source for
>> important browsers like netscape.
Christoph> You mean the Debian Project caving in and changing its
Christoph> standards because some non free product cannot
> > I just did a "du -s /usr/doc" on my 386DX/33 (8MB RAM, 2-200MB HD) - and
> > it only has 11MB of docs installed. So uncompressing those isn't going
> > to kill me - I'm sure most other people using old hardware have similar
> > usage.
> >
> > Who objects?
>
> I do.
> text/html/ps usua
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Jim Pick wrote:
> I just did a "du -s /usr/doc" on my 386DX/33 (8MB RAM, 2-200MB HD) - and
> it only has 11MB of docs installed. So uncompressing those isn't going
> to kill me - I'm sure most other people using old hardware have similar
> usage.
>
> Who objects?
I do. Tex
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Jim Pick wrote:
> I just did a "du -s /usr/doc" on my 386DX/33 (8MB RAM, 2-200MB HD) - and
> it only has 11MB of docs installed. So uncompressing those isn't going
> to kill me - I'm sure most other people using old hardware have similar
> usage.
>
> Who objects?
I
> I only advocated this as a compromise. I am for #1. And I would go further
> and abolish all compression everywhere. Compression should only be done if
> its transparent for all apps (e2compr or zlib?). I have seen so many
> broken packages because of manpage compression etc etc. The clean solut
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Jim Pick wrote:
>We shouldn't be changing the way browsers work.
That is what I have been saying all the way...
>Most browsers follow the HTTP/1.0 or 1.1 standard - including Netscape -
>and I don't think it's smart to develop a "debian-specific" HTTP
>protocol extension -
> >You can't fix the browsers, because we don't have the source for important
> >browsers like netscape.
>
> You mean the Debian Project caving in and changing its standards because
> some non free product cannot be changed? Where is our commitment to free
> software?
We shouldn't be changing
On 29 Jun 1997, Marco Budde wrote:
>CL> Why would you change the links? I dont understand. If you are fixing the
>CL> web-browsers then do it in such a way that you do not need to change any
>CL> links.
>
>You can't fix the browsers, because we don't have the source for important
>browsers like
13 matches
Mail list logo
