At Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:26:48 +0100 (CET),
Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't like bzip2 for the sole fact that it takes _ages_ to
> compress files, compared to gzip. Saving 10% or 20% on disk
> space is not worth wasting >= 10 times more CPU time than gzip.
> Disk space is cheap nowadays, but upgrading to a CPU that is
> 10 times faster is not.
But when one compresses a file with bzip2 and prepare a smaller
distribution, hundreds of people can save their download time. That's
why we compress things. I'd focus on the receivers' side.
Of course a necessary manner is preparing also a gzip'ed file for
those who prefer gzip's less memory usage rather than bzip2's higher
compression. And still, a standard is a standard.
> (I once tried to compress our FreeBSD ISO images with bzip2,
> just to compare the space savings with gzip. I aborted the
> experiment after 6 hours (!). gzip took about 30 minutes.
> Consequently, bzip2 was considered unusable and went into the
> trash can.)
Not everyone wants/needs to compress such a big stuff with bzip2
to waste time. But having bzip2/bunzip2 gives us an option.
> I'd vote for keeping things as they are: bzip2 is fine as
> a port.
Despite all of above, I have to agree that, since whether having bzip2
is already an option thanks to the port. :)
--
/
/__ __
/ ) ) ) ) / http://www.idaemons.org/knu/
Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We are but hungry.. Associated Ita-meshi Daemons!"
http://www.idaemons.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
