jdk1.2pre-v1.tar.bz2 24457274
jdk1.2pre-v1.tar.gz 26062044
Means a 6.1% better compression rate. Is it really that much improvement? If it was at
least 15%...
Peter
John Goerzen wrote:
> "David Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It was a bit rude as written, and that's part of the problem with email in
> > general. Sometimes terse statements sound worse than the intended message
> > was to be delivered.
>
> You said "nobody uses bzip2", which is CLEARLY incorrect.
>
> > While I am really happy with the work that this free software team has been
> > doing, and I appreciate and make good use of their labor, the original post
> > did have a good point: why introduce a new zip scheme that would not be
> > available to most people? gzip is open source and widely deployed. Was
> > there a particularly strong reason for using bzip2 over gzip?
>
> First, this is not "new". bzip2 has been around for some time.
> Secondly, the source is available and it runs on a wide variety of
> platforms. How is there a problem here? This is exactly how gzip is
> distributed. While it's true that bzip2 is not GPL, it does meet the
> DFSG.
>
> Your question about why to use it demonstrates that you do not know
> how it works, or what it does. Yet you criticise the use of it.
> Perhaps why you realize how much better compression it gets than gzip,
> and check out its homepage at http://www.muraroa.demon.co.uk/, you'll
> see that any computer that's going to be running the JDK will probably
> be of sufficient speed to benefit from bzip2.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
