General linux distro question:

If someone could point me in the right direction...

Why are there are no compressed distros available for download? Today I am looking for redhat.

I do not wish to download an ISO if there are compressed gZipped (or other methods of compression) available.

Is there an obvious reason for not compressing linux distros?
Or please let me know of possible locations to download the compressed versions.

In this case today I'm looking for RedHat.. But I'd also like info about other zipped distros if you know any.

Thank you

Well the majority of what is on the iso images is already compressed so compressing the iso probably wouldn't save you much, if any, space.

That, and the ISOs represent disks that are authored to be the same as the production CDs that they represent.

But what jtshaw is saying is right. Have you ever tried to zip a handful of zip files together??? It doesn't yield much savings.

I tried that once... The resulting file was actually larger than the combined size of the individual files!
But, that said, compressing an ISO often does save you as much as 25%. I thing the reason that so few are is that people with a high speed connection are just as happy to spend a little longer waiting for the download to finish than waiting for a 400MB+ file to decompress.

Thanks.. I figured that was part of the case.

I did see a 1.6 GIG TAR on GNUcleus yesterday after I posted, but I'm going to just download the ISO's considering gnucleus could be slow connection to a user.

so versus say
600-700MB *3 or 4 cds = 1.8Gig -2.1Gig
There could be some savings, unless the 1.6gig I saw was an incomplete package.

Well I have high-speed lite connection. I'll just have to fire up a separate box and let it rip the ISO's while I work away.

I think I might get in the business of selling distro CD's by mail, because I almost would go and pay the 15 bucks plus shipping or what not.. instead of waiting for the download.. even on a high-speed lite connection.

I perfer to you minimal install iso's. My gentoo iso is 50MB. Of course... you still have to download the packages during the installation.... but at least then you only get the packages you are installing and not all the other junk.

So do I. The only reason I am downloading the bloatware is because my server on one of my hosting accounts is Redhat powered.

I have to clone exactly what the server is running in order to compile some CGI applications locally and test them out. However, I'm also going to use some really small distros and see if I can compile the CGI applications on separate distros and still remain compatible.

what do you mean by broadband lite? Never heard that term. Are you using DSL or CABLE? I can download the 4 FC cd's in under an hour, on a cable connect.

It's only available in certain areas. Basically I pay a bit less than HALF the price of normal high speed.

I get usually 12-20kb per second downloads. Versus usually got 15-40kb per second on full highspeed.

It's cable I'm on. I used to be on DSL with full high speed.

ouch! only 15-40k? My cable speeds are 1MB(Megabyte not megabit) down load and 600k upload. That is not highspeed broadband, sorry. My ISP advertises as 8.0mb on their cheapest cable connect. It's less than $30 a month. (that would be their LITE, and is the one I have) There TOP one is 15mb(Alittle over 1.6MB a sec) down and 6mb(almost 1000k) up. For $70 amonth. Also DSL is junk.

So shaw must suck (shaw.ca, biggest cable provider around here) compared to your companies down in the USA.

Hmm.. back when I knew someone with "full $40 consumer high speed cable access" he said once in a while he could get 100-130KB/s but usually more like 40-70KB/s

I hear things like "DSL is bad" Cable is bad" "DSL is good for businesses because" "Cable is not good when you live on a street that is crowded".

What I really want: fast enough connection so I can run a server that I can control HERE with Apache. That will most likely cost at least 130 dollars a month for a starter up. (then if high traffic, probably $500-1000) I'm sick of all the hosting problems I have, switching hosts, etc. but no money to fork out for a proper connection.

With your speeds it sounds like you could actually get away with running a server (ever tried?).

Of course some packages won't allow you to legally run a server and you have to get the business package. My shaw high speed lite agreement says you can't really run a server in their lite package.

Sorry I assumed you were in US. No I'm not saying they suck. I just don't see how they call that broadband. Yeah I have ran a webserver but I no longer do. I didn't get alot of hits but I couldn't see the diff with it running or not running speed wise. DSL is good if you live like 10ft from the switch, Cable is way better than DSL, most businesses run t1 and higher. A T1 from where I am is $140-180 amonth to a residence. I dont know about T3 or anything like that. My current ISP is on a double T3 backbone so even when everybody is on we are gaurenteed 8.0mb a sec, granted the server you are downloading from can send it to you that fast. That is my big problem sometimes is finding a server that will send it to me more than 500k a sec. All depends on traffic to/enroute to the server.

In India, they call a 64 kbps (kilobits per second) cable connection "broadband" internet

Maybe I'll sign up for fast broadband for 1-2 months just to download a bunch of linux Iso's.

Well I ended up finding out some more info about getting iso's more effeciently, such as debian's "netinst" program, Gotta give that a try.