Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:54:02 -0700 From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> To: <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD-11.0-BETA1-amd64-disc1.iso is too big for my 700MB CD-r Message-ID: <0861cc7b90c24d1a5bb41f33a54bef96@ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <20160713090506.GK20831@zxy.spb.ru> References: <op.ykgfddt2kndu52@eveline> <CAG6CVpW3rGEoqTcQodY%2BWVPVsTdxUd6OsB%2BzAq1k7Y-vUrdaSg@mail.gmail.com> <5784908E.1090007@ShaneWare.Biz> <2d3ef451db7ad0b9149c9eceb04227c8@ultimatedns.net>, <20160713090506.GK20831@zxy.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:05:06 +0300 Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> wrote > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 02:05:32PM -0700, Chris H wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:09:10 +0930 Shane Ambler <FreeBSD@ShaneWare.Biz> > > wrote > > > On 12/07/2016 06:54, Conrad Meyer wrote: > > > > DVD-R dates to 1997; cheap USB flash devices are now pervasive. Maybe > > > > it's time to move on from CD. > > > > > > +1 on dropping CD images. I haven't burnt a CD in over 10 years and I > > > don't believe I have seen a CD only drive in that time. Even with a CD > > > size image I have burnt them to DVD, I first started this because > > > transfer speeds of DVD's are faster and nowadays it costs almost the > > > same to burn a DVD. So I see zero benefit to using CD's and that's > > > before thinking of reusable USB devices. > > > > > > I do think there is a benefit to keeping the small boot only image > > > available that can be used to start/recover a machine that can then > > > download any data to be installed. > > > > > > -- > > > FreeBSD - the place to B...Storing Data > > > > > > Shane Ambler > > > > > > > -1 > > There is no *good* reason that FreeBSD can't maintain the CD image. > > I think the *real* question here is; *why* is it now so hard to fit > > it on a CD? > > clang main binary now 50MB size (27MB for 10.x) -- on live FS and in > base.txz. 11.x now ship lldb (on live FS too) -- 50MB also binary -- on live > FS and in base.txz. > kernel now 26M vs 12M on 10.3. > kernel with modules now 115MB vs 54MB on 10.3 > total size of *.a now 50M (vs 48M). > > All binaries slightly bigger: usr/bin/ld from 1580008 to 1615912 (+2%). Thank you very much for posting the stats, Slawa! Yikes. The kernel is now *twice* the size?! Is bigger really better? I understand that clang is largely responsible. But do the ends truly justify the means? What's the cruft factor? You know; new ideas get started then life, or other things get in the way, and it stalls. Leaving cruft in the source. With the hopes of completing it at a later date. Sorry, I haven't (yet) had the time to download a new iso image and examine this, myself. Honestly, these numbers are really depressing. :( --Chris --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0861cc7b90c24d1a5bb41f33a54bef96>