--EemXnrF2ob+xzFeB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 10:45:29AM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:

> I think there also was the issue that bz2 needs much more ram than gzip to
> extract.

This is true, though there are options (as mentioned) that make it
less so.

I think it's also true that, for the very slowest and smallest
machines, it's unlikely that they're installed in isolation.  There
usually would be another more capable machine nearby to help out, and
perhaps that machine can expand the files first.  It seems rare that
such a machine would be used in isolation, too, without (say) other
data over NFS etc. I agree that we shouldn't rely on this, but I just
wonder if it's really such an issue in practice.

I would like to see stuff distributed as .bz2 instead (or as well?!)=20
as .gz

--
Dan.

--EemXnrF2ob+xzFeB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFAZWMsEAVxvV4N66cRAi0YAKCcDedrEjDDWUPlDRMP5+x1csnUXQCffa7x
g2/omDWLAVj0RPqT4z1bwyc=
=Zgic
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--EemXnrF2ob+xzFeB--