Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
At this point, I'd just like to see the iso available, I don't care if
it is compressed or not. :P
If you can't wait for the "official" one, you can download the
ISO that I've built for the local university. It's available
from
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
At this point, I'd just like to see the iso available, I don't care if
it is compressed or not. :P
To ALL PEOPLE complaining about the size:
--
| Andy | e-mail | web |
| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.lewman.com |
You will
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
No, you're not reading the thread properly. Someone else (who doesn't
have the same bandwidth limitations that you and I do) said it doesn't
compress well.
Ok, fair enough. My stance was that some compression was better than no
compression, but I'll
After reading the announcement...
Congratulations to the FreeBSD community
another milestone!
A great OS...
But for the ISO images... IS it a problem to gzip
them
They take less space on the master site and the mirror
sites and they take less bandwidth!
Shouldn't be a problem I think!
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:42:11 +0100, Arnout Boer wrote:
But for the ISO images... IS it a problem to gzip
them
Well, I can think of at least one problem. Think of the extra disk
space folks would need for the gunzip step. :-)
They take less space on the master site and the mirror
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:42:11 +0100, Arnout Boer wrote:
But for the ISO images... IS it a problem to gzip
them
Well, I can think of at least one problem. Think of the extra disk
space folks would need for the gunzip step. :-)
and compression ratio would not be that much. The
* Luigi Rizzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000315 05:34] wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:42:11 +0100, Arnout Boer wrote:
But for the ISO images... IS it a problem to gzip
them
Well, I can think of at least one problem. Think of the extra disk
space folks would need for the gunzip
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
And not that much even with that:
-rw-r--r-- 1 bright staff 647815168 Dec 28 19:23 3.4-install.iso
-rw-r--r-- 1 bright staff 625839147 Dec 28 19:23 3.4-install.iso.gz
I never thought I'd see the day that when considering sizes of downloads
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:43:27 GMT, Paul Robinson wrote:
If you save 20Mb, over a reliable 56Kb modem, you've saved them somewhere
in the region of one and a half hours... I think you guys are too used to
your broadband... :)
And you're forgetting that, as I said in my original reply, people
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
And you're forgetting that, as I said in my original reply, people with
56K modems usually benefit from hardware compression over their link
anyway.
But you're defeated by your own argument, as according to you the image
doesn't compress very well,
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:55:14 GMT, Paul Robinson wrote:
But you're defeated by your own argument, as according to you the image
doesn't compress very well
No, you're not reading the thread properly. Someone else (who doesn't
have the same bandwidth limitations that you and I do) said it
* Paul Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000315 06:14] wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
And not that much even with that:
-rw-r--r-- 1 bright staff 647815168 Dec 28 19:23 3.4-install.iso
-rw-r--r-- 1 bright staff 625839147 Dec 28 19:23 3.4-install.iso.gz
I never
-Original Message-
From: Paul Robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 15 March 2000 14:55
you're still leaving the guy with the modem sat
there for around 45 minutes...
But given that he has probably been sat there for 2.5 days already, is that
a major problem?
Rich
--
Rich
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Seriously though, there's no reason not to have the ISOs up in
compressed format though. I guess given a choice between _only_
compressed or _only_ uncompressed I think uncompressed is better,
but if the space is available it would be nice to
-On [2315 15:35], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Seriously though, there's no reason not to have the ISOs up in
compressed format though. I guess given a choice between _only_
compressed or _only_ uncompressed I think
Paul Robinson wrote:
I think this saving shows a little respect
and concern for the less fortunate home user stuck with a 56K modem paying
$x/hour where x can be anywhere between 0.5 and 5...
Sorry, can't resist.
Given (my) local call rates, if I started downloading the 3.4 ISO image
and did
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:43:27 GMT, Paul Robinson wrote:
If you save 20Mb, over a reliable 56Kb modem, you've saved them somewhere
in the region of one and a half hours... I think you guys are too used to
your broadband... :)
And you're forgetting that, as I said in my original
* Paul Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000315 06:14] wrote:
[snip snip]
~ % ftp ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/release/i386/ISO-IMAGES/
Connected to wizard.freesoftware.com.
...
ftp get 3.4-install.iso
local: 3.4-install.iso remote: 3.4-install.iso
227 Entering Passive Mode
Arnout Boer wrote:
But for the ISO images... IS it a problem to gzip
them
They take less space on the master site and the mirror
sites and they take less bandwidth!
But, how much would the ISO be able to be compressed? The source is
already a split, compressed tarball, for example...
I think people are forgetting that you do not necessarily need to download
the entire ISO image in order to make a fresh install of FreeBSD. Back
when I started using FreeBSD somewhere around version 2.1, I remember
donwloading the boot floppies, then installing the whole deal over FTP,
all on a
- Original Message -
From: "Eric D. Futch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: Why not gzip iso images?
I think people are forgetting that you do not necessarily need to download
the entire ISO image in order to ma
Can I step in here for a moment? I'm not going to gzip the
ISO images. Please just live with it. End of discussion. :-)
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
And you're forgetting that, as I said in my original reply, people with
56K modems usually benefit from hardware compression over their link
anyway.
But you're defeated by your own argument, as according to you the image
doesn't compress very
23 matches
Mail list logo
