> There then there is an issue of user choice. I think we are offering > too many choices without explaining what's behind it. > > I could say lzo is "old and proven" and lzma is "new and more > effective", but since lzo is disabled by default and there are no > complaints about it, keeping lzo becomes pointless. lzo is faster than lzma but I did a small count and seen that decompression time is around 10 ms on 31 KiB image on slow computer. Difference of few ms doesn't pay off > > I don't think we are going to see compression much more effecting than > lzma to justify keeping the infrastructure for more than one compression > algorithm. Now I agree with you. No further oppositions from me > > -- > Regards, > Pavel Roskin > > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >
-- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
