One of the cool things about FLAC is that it's liscensed under GNU, and SHN is not. However, SHN has been free for non-commercial use for nearly 10 years, so I doubt that'll ever change.
I really don't think going from 433mb to 419mb is a substantial improvement. Mathematically its only 3 percent. Introducing other formats can become more than just a matter of decompression speed and file size. What about db.etree.org shns in circ? What about the learning curve of getting everyone up to speed on how to work with the FLAC files? In my opinion, the "cons" of switching currently outweigh the "pros" of FLAC (which I don't want to downplay..it has some nice features). Thats just my two cents. Jeremy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnson, Carl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 6:02 PM Subject: RE: [etree] flac? > Oh just noticed they have a comparison on the FLAC page: > > http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html > > Apparently FLAC is a little slower than SHN by default but has better > compression. If the compression is lowered, it is just as fast as SHN but > still better compression (419 megs instead of 433, that's fairly > substantial). It also says that FLAC is streamable (and SHN is not). > > Interesting! > > Carl > > > _______________________________________________ > etree.org etree mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://mail.etree.org/mailman/listinfo/etree > > Need help? Ask <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ etree.org etree mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://mail.etree.org/mailman/listinfo/etree Need help? Ask <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
