Control: tags -1 +patch
> The extended description says of bzip2:
>
> > It typically compresses files to within 10% to 15% of the best available
> > techniques, whilst being around twice as fast at compression and six
> > times faster at decompression.
> Although this is relative, I think this is highly misleading, and if it
> is "true", this claim should be detailed and backed by documentation.
I've gathered some data to back this claim. I compressed a 16824672 bytes
executable, for other compressors taking the first level that produces a
file smaller than bzip2. As in no case the level matched exactly, this data
is biased by around half a level in bzip2's favour in both cases. Every
value is the median of three runs.
compression decompression
bzip2 0m2.240s 0m0.691s
zstd -8 0m0.755s 0m0.047s
xz -0 0m1.266s 0m0.375s
Thus, what about replacing the long desc with the following?:
bzip2 is a freely available, patent free, data compressor. It has been
since greatly outpaced by newer alternatives, for example zstd at
equivalent shrinking ratio compresses thrice as fast while decompressing
nearly 15 times faster than bzip2. Thus, bzip2 shouldn't in be used in
new designs, although you want it available to access historic data.
.
bzip2 compresses files using the Burrows-Wheeler block-sorting text
compression algorithm, and Huffman coding. Compression is generally
considerably better than that achieved by more conventional
LZ77/LZ78-based compressors, and approaches the performance of the PPM
family of statistical compressors.
.
The archive file format of bzip2 (.bz2) is incompatible with that of its
predecessor, bzip (.bz).
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ I've read an article about how lively happy music boosts
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ productivity. You can read it, too, you just need the
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ right music while doing so. I recommend Skepticism
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ (funeral doom metal).
