The developers shouldn't be expected to, they're busy doing what they do
best.
tedc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of chas williams - CONTRACTOR
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 8:26 AM
To: openafs-info@openafs.org
Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS
ted creedon wrote:
All good questions, with no immediate answers.
snip (If this cutting bugs someone plz. let me know.)
One more thing came to mind. How to deal with chapters
for the various *nix platforms and architectures and Windows
based systems. i.e. the IBM/Transarc docs got me
Bil,
1. Windows has its own set of docs.
2. All the *nix platfroms are in the IBM docs, multiple platforms (AIX,
HPUX, etc.) per section.
3. This makes for a lengthy documents includeing platforms that the typical
reader isn't interested in (I.e. user X uses Linux client/servers and
Windows
I made a couple of comments the other day about the web page, but that
thread had a life of its own and has now changed direction. I thought it
would be better to start another one that is specific to my question.
In the original thread on the web page I commented that clicking on the
I too would like to see a switch from bz2 back to gz. It would be more
convenient for the OpenBSD platform. If we can find a compression type that
works on all platforms that would be good.
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
Did OpenAFS.org need to change the compress type from gz to bz2 for
some reason? I would rather see the most common compressed type that
all uncompressors can use. Does OpenAFS.org need a license to use ZIP?
I'd vote for distributing it in both .bz2 .gz forms. .bz2 is much
more
Rodney M Dyer wrote:
In the original thread on the web page I commented that clicking on the
openafs-1.3.85-src.tar.bz2 actually causes the IE browser to download
it as openafs-1.3.85-src.tar.tar. This is strange, but even more
strange is the fact that I can't do anything with the resulting
On Sunday, July 17, 2005 04:48:31 PM -0400 Robert Banz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Did OpenAFS.org need to change the compress type from gz to bz2 for
some reason? I would rather see the most common compressed type that
all uncompressors can use. Does OpenAFS.org need a license to use ZIP?
On Sunday, July 17, 2005 04:51:01 PM -0400 Sir Clark Frazier Hale I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rodney M Dyer wrote:
In the original thread on the web page I commented that clicking on the
openafs-1.3.85-src.tar.bz2 actually causes the IE browser to download
it as openafs-1.3.85-src.tar.tar.
Content-Type and Content-Encoding are two different things. Both are
correct for the OpenAFS source:
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:43:25 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.33 (Debian GNU/Linux) mod_ssl/2.8.22 OpenSSL/0.9.7d
Last-Modified: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:51:20 GMT
ETag: 2600010-a79e4e-42d33e38
Jim Rees [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bzip2 isn't that much better than gzip, maybe 20%. OpenBSD includes
gzip but not bunzip2, I think due to licensing restrictions.
It's unlikely that's the reason, since it's basically a BSD license:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Sunday, July 17, 2005 04:51:01 PM -0400 Sir Clark Frazier Hale I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rodney M Dyer wrote:
In the original thread on the web page I commented that clicking on the
openafs-1.3.85-src.tar.bz2 actually causes the IE browser to download
it as
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
We've done this in the past, but for some reason
not revealed to me, the gatekeeper(s) who did the
release chose not to generate gzip'd versions of
1.3.85. It's possible this was just an oversight;
to find out why, you'd have to ask them...
At 07:21 PM 7/17/2005, you wrote:
Sorry, I'm ignorant as usual. And now that I've fired up my Windows
machine, I can't reproduce what R. Dyer's talking about. I have seen it
before, though. Maybe in Netscape 7.0 or 7.1.
What version of Windows are you running?
What compression tools do you
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Rodney M Dyer wrote:
As to the comment on better compression. We're
only saving about 2 meg here. Look at the
1.3.8400 release, where it was in tar.gz and
tar.bz2. Is 2 meg really all that important in
the scheme of things? It's just a little more
than a floppy. Is
Rodney M Dyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As to the comment on better compression. We're only saving about 2
meg here. Look at the 1.3.8400 release, where it was in tar.gz and
tar.bz2. Is 2 meg really all that important in the scheme of things?
It's just a little more than a floppy. Is
At 10:15 PM 7/17/2005, Derrick J Brashear wrote:
Wireless (non 802.11) network isn't free, and I like to develop from
random places.
You're splitting hairs here. ;-)
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 06:47:20PM -0400, Jim Rees wrote:
Bzip2 isn't that much better than gzip, maybe 20%. OpenBSD includes gzip
but not bunzip2, I think due to licensing restrictions.
Specifically for OpenAFS 1.3.84, 22.94%. :)
That seems usefully-better to me -- saves almost two and a
Ok ok, I've observed that it was an oversite, and have already downloaded
the TAR file itself. WinZIP can deal with TARs directly, even though they
aren't compressed. I'm not really interested in having every compression
tool under the sun (Microsystems? ... pun) installed. I'm also willing
Rodney M Dyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok ok, I've observed that it was an oversite, and have already
downloaded the TAR file itself. WinZIP can deal with TARs directly,
even though they aren't compressed. I'm not really interested in having
every compression tool under the sun
20 matches
Mail list logo
