What Bruce had to say about non-Pixar names. Re: what's after slink
Saw this posting from Bruce on Slashdot: http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=98/10/15/1011208pid=128#147 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:45:49PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:29:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: theone wrote: Names after Slink is very simple. They should just be named after userfriendly characters. Oooh.. that means our releases would even have their own geek code blocks (http://www.userfriendly.org/cast/) ;-) dust_puppy pitr aj chief cobb erwin greg hillary mike smiling_man stef tanya miranda now too... Don't forget her. (I still want an iWhack) Debian GNU/Linux Erwin/iWhack! Zephaniah E, Hull, --- Thought he suggested this before? Part 1.2 Type: application/pgp-signature
Re: How about using bzip2 as the standard *.deb compression format?
Right now I'm using a 200MMX with 64MB, which used to be a 133MHz with 64MB and I always found the speed of dpkg perfectly acceptable. Are you using the outdated dselect method that scans every single package every time you install one little component, and do have like 400 packages installed with 60,000 files on your disk? Please fully consider all the points I made in my other emails. Christopher John Goerzen wrote: This is silly. dpkg/dselect are already insanely slow, even on my P166 with 128 meg of RAM -- especially when reading database, etc. If we slow down the installation so much more by using bzip2, then people will simply stop upgrading, or switch to other distributions because it is so slow. That is not acceptable. John Christopher Barry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If your mighty 386/25 with 4MB can make World the entire X distribution and custom kernels then surely it won't sweat a little bit of bzip2 decompressing... and since you spend a lot less time downloading a bzip2ed *.deb, the extra time bzip2 would take by swapping and thrashing the disk should balance out nicely. Christopher James Troup wrote: Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes in gratuitous QP: On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 12:15:40PM +0100, James Troup wrote: Old/slow/lomem machines can't properly compile X or Mozilla anyway. Bzzt. I've compiled xfree86 for Debian/m68k on a 386/25 equivalent with only 14Mb (don't ask) of memory several times. Took 5 days, like, but it compiled ``properly''. I doubt it would compile on my 4 meg 486. I don't; I compiled kernels on the same machine when it only had 4Mb. Nor would it run there. And I know it ran on my Falcon with 4Mb... -- James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- John Goerzen Linux, Unix consulting programming [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) www.debian.org | + Visit the Air Capital Linux Users Group on the web at http://www.aclug.org
Re: How about using bzip2 as the standard *.deb compression format?
It seems the whole point you are making is that there is nothing old, slow, lowmem machines can't handle that should be bzip2 compressed, but my point is that if there is no package that a slow, lomem machine can't handle, like an X or Emacs source distribution, then the slow, lowmem machine could handle a demanding decompressor to. You've got to think about majority rule and what benefits the most users overall. I brought up the bzip2 thing initially because it was mentioned that the main Debian distribution will no longer be able to fit on a CD, and media and shipping costs could be nicely reduced if we could get the whole thing back onto a single CD again, and also buy more time in getting the package management system to deal with more than one CD. Additionally, for users that don't have an ethernet connection to a T1 but like to keep their system up to date with Apt, which I think is the category most people running Debian on their home box fall into, it's nice to have much faster downloads. Especially for people with metered internet access like a lot of ISDN plans. The point is, anyone with a P5-60 or faster machine gains nothing but benefit from moving to bzip2, and the poeple stuck with older machines will still be able to use bzip2 and if their net connection is slow, the extra time bzip2 takes decompressing may even balance out. I'm sure people spending a great deal of time on old slow boxes running Debian are a very small minority, and they can make the small sacrifice of longer decompression times so that all of the benefits mentioned above like reduced media and shipping costs, more time to get multi-cd support for package management, reduced download times, reduced monthly bills for those with metered access, reduced disk space usage on ftp servers, reduced load on ftp mirrors, reduced usage of local disk space for those of us that like to keep a local mirror, etc., etc Christopher James Troup wrote: Christopher Barry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If your mighty 386/25 ^ a) cut out the sarcasm, it's uncalled for. b) get your facts right, it's not a 386, it's a 386/25 equivalent[1] as I said already. with 4MB can make World the entire X distribution and custom kernels then surely it won't sweat a little bit of bzip2 decompressing... I didn't say it wouldn't; I was trying to point out what complete rubbish Old/slow/lomem machines can't properly compile X or Mozilla anyway. was. I'm not interested in the bzip2 discussion per se, because it seems like your average Debian discussion, with lots of people ra-ra-ing but no danger of anyone actually getting down and doing any real work. and since you spend a lot less time downloading a bzip2ed *.deb, That depends entirely on one's network connection. The time saved on my network connection for the previous 3 years wouldn't have actually been measurable. the extra time bzip2 would take by swapping and thrashing the disk should balance out nicely. IYO and IYE. Mileage does vary. [1] It's actually a [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the mother of all brain dead motherboard designs which slows it down by a factor of 2 or so. As you can see, I'm not overly proud of the machine, quite the opposite in fact. -- James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How about using bzip2 as the standard *.deb compression format?
If your mighty 386/25 with 4MB can make World the entire X distribution and custom kernels then surely it won't sweat a little bit of bzip2 decompressing... and since you spend a lot less time downloading a bzip2ed *.deb, the extra time bzip2 would take by swapping and thrashing the disk should balance out nicely. Christopher James Troup wrote: Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes in gratuitous QP: On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 12:15:40PM +0100, James Troup wrote: Old/slow/lomem machines can't properly compile X or Mozilla anyway. Bzzt. I've compiled xfree86 for Debian/m68k on a 386/25 equivalent with only 14Mb (don't ask) of memory several times. Took 5 days, like, but it compiled ``properly''. I doubt it would compile on my 4 meg 486. I don't; I compiled kernels on the same machine when it only had 4Mb. Nor would it run there. And I know it ran on my Falcon with 4Mb... -- James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
