On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > So there are three possible solutions. > > A: Have the insertion utilities archive and compress by zipping. Have Fred > compress by zipping. Yields good compression. Requires no major changes to > Fred. Requires no changes to FProxy. > B: Have the insertion utility archive by taring (no compression). Have Fred > compress by zipping. Yields better compresion ratios. Requires no major > changes to Fred. FProxy needs to be able to read tars. > C: Have the insertion utility archive by taring (no compression). Have Fred > compress by Bzipping. Yields best compression ratios. Requires adding Bziping > compressing/decompressing code into Fred. FProxy needs to be able to read > tars. > > OK, does that some things up? Now everyone vote and end this infernal thread.
I vote for D: Scrap the idea. Let clients do it if they wish, and let clients deal with the problems if they wish. The benefits to Freenet won't be much. The amount of compressible content in Freenet is surely not that great. -todd _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
