-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> If I'd downloaded this thing over a decent DSL or cable modem
> line, bzip2 would actually be a net loss in total
> download + uncompress time.
I think the download time is a lot more important to people than
the uncompression time. A savings of nearly 1.5 Megs is
significant, no matter what type of line you are on. If we can
shave off 1.5M for a 56K user, why not?
My runtime tests were also different:
bzip -9: 8.959 real
bzip -1: 7.473 real
gzip -9: 1.491 real
That's not much of a difference, and (IMO) is more than offset
by the smaller download size. Bandwidth should be a more
important factor: after all, the next few steps (tar,
configure, make) are going to make the unzipping seem fast
in comparison. :)
I'm not advocating *replacing* gzip with bzip2, but I do think
we should make it an option. It should not be that much
trouble.
Digital signatures, on the other hand, are a lot more trouble
but are much more important than the gzip/bzip2 issue....
Greg Sabino Mullane
greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200111201606
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html
iQA/AwUBO/rG+LybkGcUlkrIEQJO8wCdGlZgyQUTYwLUMTrSwcmmnUx0nlYAn37H
I6W1G8h+7jQIIiBTuHQeKQB7
=PtZi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----