Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: |Robert Elz wrote: |> Old style distribution was a single file containing both code and data. |> It was split because it was more manageable (for everyone) that way |> ps: I don't really see any need for a better compression technique than |> what is currently used (or really, for that matter, any compression \ |> at all.) |Granted, if you're well connected all these sizes are small. But if you're |paying for each kilobyte of download, a 36% savings over split .gz format \ |(84% |savings from raw tarballs) is nice to have. I concur, enterily general that is, it really matters, especially so on the country even in highly developed countries (talking about Germany). E.g., i have just recently contributed a message to a DragonFly BSD thread, though only in spirit because my messages go to /dev/null (last message of mine reported "fcntl(2) lock on /dev/null fails with EINVAL", so that is probably fixed (ha ha)) ||Its getting harder and harder to fit a reasonable base dist onto a CD. \ ||I really recommend using the USB disk image instead of trying to burn \ ||an ISO. | |I didn't want to start a thread, but now jumping in to add that |the release image was only about 170 MB when compressed with |xz(1), which would have saved ~100 MB download (and archive |storage) compared to bzip2. (This matters here, more often than |not). --steffen