On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:44 PM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:

And on a slow enough connection (e.g., dial-up, which is still common in
large parts of the world), "a few percent increase or decrease" in download
time can mean hours of difference, much more than even 30-40% of install
time.

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 say 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 plausible. And immediately after install, you need to download 99.2 MB of repository metadata just to be able to install a package. And then you'll get greeted with 939 MB of pending updates (I just checked on a clean F31 install), which even get automatically downloaded. Fedora is just not usable in those environments you describe. At least I personally would be immediately looking for a different OS.

I prefer solving a problem that I know it exists to a problem that I think it might exist.

(Assuming that your numbers are even accurate, which I have not seen
any proof of so far.)

Those are not my numbers, those are numbers from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Changes/OptimizeSquashFS . I agree that independent verification would be good to have, and I assume we will see it for the best compression candidates, when we run it directly in our infra using some scratch compose.