[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: fedora-devel-list
Subject: Re: Change proposal discussion - Optimize SquashFS Size
From: Kamil Paral <kparal () redhat ! com>
Date: 2020-02-06 9:52:48
Message-ID: CA+cBOTcHVizE+FBYZxToCQuFJxpMfT5CCMPJchoQBR+pN7DYvw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 11:58 PM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote=
:
> Kamil Paral wrote:
> > I have already responded to your exaggerated numbers once, and you didn=
't
> > even reply. "Hours of difference" for "a few percent increase", let's s=
ay
> > 3 hours for 3 percent increase, means 100 hours total download time.
> > That's over 4 days of non-stop download. I don't consider that plausibl=
e.
>
> I used to download Red Hat Linux (FTP edition) in > 1 week with what was
> then considered a "broadband" connection. (And these days, Fedora is so
> much
> larger than RHL used to be that even a significantly faster connection
> than
> that will take a week to download it.)
>
We all used to have dial-ups, sure. I didn't use mine to download Linux
OSes, but I very much remember waiting 15 minutes to get a single mp3 file.
Alright, so let's conclude there used to be at least one person with this
use case. The question is how many such people use Fedora right now? Can we
even figure out their number somehow? And since we can't satisfy everybody,
do we want to make our decisions based on this part of the audience?
You keep repeating how a few percent size change is the night and day
difference for some people (it isn't, by definition it is a few percent
change - if you use huge absolute numbers, it's just because your baseline
is even bigger, like 100 hours vs 103 hours of download time - still a few
percent change). You also complain how bloated everything is. Yet you're
one of the few people caring about the KDE spin, where major applications
are duplicated or triplicated.There are 3 different web browsers(!), 2
different package managers, 2 file managers. Just pruning the apps list
would make a bigger difference than any compression algorithm can. It would
also make sense to create a specific spin that is targeted at
near-zero-bandwidth group, containing just the bare-bone system essentials
and letting them install just the stuff they need, saving on bandwidth and
time. If we want to care about these users, I believe this is a much better
strategy, with much better gains for them, than discussing a few percent
change in compression type.
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb \
5, 2020 at 11:58 PM Kevin Kofler <<a \
href="mailto:kevin.kofler@chello.at">kevin.kofler@chello.at</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Kamil Paral wrote:<br> \
> I have already responded to your exaggerated numbers once, and you \
didn't<br> > even reply. "Hours of difference" for "a few \
percent increase", let's say<br> > 3 hours for 3 percent increase, means \
100 hours total download time.<br> > That's over 4 days of non-stop download. \
I don't consider that plausible.<br> <br>
I used to download Red Hat Linux (FTP edition) in > 1 week with what was <br>
then considered a "broadband" connection. (And these days, Fedora is so \
much <br> larger than RHL used to be that even a significantly faster connection than \
<br> that will take a week to download it.)<br></blockquote><div><br></div>We all \
used to have dial-ups, sure. I didn't use mine to download Linux OSes, but I very \
much remember waiting 15 minutes to get a single mp3 file. Alright, so let's \
conclude there used to be at least one person with this use case. The question is how \
many such people use Fedora right now? Can we even figure out their number somehow? \
And since we can't satisfy everybody, do we want to make our decisions based on \
this part of the audience?</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div \
class="gmail_quote">You keep repeating how a few percent size change is the night and \
day difference for some people (it isn't, by definition it is a few percent \
change - if you use huge absolute numbers, it's just because your baseline is \
even bigger, like 100 hours vs 103 hours of download time - still a few percent \
change). You also complain how bloated everything is. Yet you're one of the few \
people caring about the KDE spin, where major applications are duplicated or \
triplicated.There are 3 different web browsers(!), 2 different package managers, 2 \
file managers. Just pruning the apps list would make a bigger difference than any \
compression algorithm can. It would also make sense to create a specific spin that is \
targeted at near-zero-bandwidth group, containing just the bare-bone system \
essentials and letting them install just the stuff they need, saving on bandwidth and \
time. If we want to care about these users, I believe this is a much better strategy, \
with much better gains for them, than discussing a few percent change in compression \
type.<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic