Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote: > On Mon, May 28, at 07:50 Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote: >>> On Sun, May 27, at 02:55 Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>>> And really, if the script works, then why would we remove it? Unless >>>> it becomes a maintenance burden because it's breaking all the time. If >>>> you really want it out, though, then we should ask on the list to find >>>> out if people are using it. >>> I do. >> I'm curious. Why? > Oh well why the hell you are doing that, since hards disk space is chip > these days, or why you are caring about memory leaks since we have ton > of MBytes of memory sticks, and why you care about bad codded applications > that > don't use the cpu with an effective way. I really didn't want a philosophy of life statement. I agree with many of your comments. As far as man file compression goes, you need to rethink it a bit. You have the tradeoff of CPU usage vs. Disk space. CPU cycles use power and that affects the environment. I understand about memory leaks. They can grow without bound. For disk compression, you utilize CPU for every decompression. But in any case, how much disk space are you saving by compressing man pages? Mine is 60M, uncompressed. If you are getting a 6-to-1 savings, that 50M. On my 'small' 80G drive, that's less than 0.065%. Checking Google, an 80G hard disk is about US $40. That 50Mb savings just saved you about three cents. I understand your sentiments, but think you should concentrate on areas that might have a more significant impact. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
