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?!) as .gz -- Dan.
Attachment:
pgphaNHI1jqEN.pgp
Description: PGP signature