On 03 Nov 94 04:35:00 +0000, Johnathan Taylor said: > A gzip'd tar archive requires complete decompression BEFORE you can even > examine it's directory
That's true. It all depends on what you want it for. > >> Anyway, why is a single compressed file any more lose-able than any other > >> kind of file? > A gzip'd tar must first be decompressed in its entirety. Your answer is quite correct, but it is to a different question... It is true that if a gzip file gets corrupted then that's it. However I think specially catering for corrupted files is not the main aim of a compression/archive system. Anyway, the explanation that I actually wanted was of the following sentence: jet> Plus I'd want jet> to be able combine assosiated files into a single archive not a seperate jet> lose-able bunch of seperatly compressed files! So why is a single compressed file any more lose-able than any other kind of file? > Fr> LZH.... > Or to expand upon that a bit it's based on LZ repeated string encoding but > Huffman encodes the length & position as well as unique data using either > dynamic or static Huffman coding depending on the the particular method. How is this different from LZ77? > These > ARE ALL Documented in various places on the nets, so those with direct access > to all those net tools should be able to locate them themselves! There are quite a lot of things on the net actually, so you will have to narrow down the search a little more than that. > >> The thing about gzip is that it uses > >> very little RAM to decompress (apart > >> from having to store each block of the > >> file > I don't know WHO wrote the above paragraph imc maybe... but GET REAL! gzip > and > PKUNZIP2.04g etc are required to keep a running 32K ring-buffer OR rely on > flawless random file access of the output stream in order to get at the 32k > sliding dictionary! Which is implied by "storing each block of the file" (if the blocks are 32K. Note: I did _not_ mean disk blocks. > Simple way for those that believe that gzip is perfect for the SAM is WRITE > IT! Don't sit there making unfounded claims about it! *PROVE US WRONG!* Do you remember how this started? By me saying I might write one. > As if deflate was the BEST lossless compression method... Ever heard of RAR? No I haven't. > Oh btw LZHuff can compress some LZW encoded stuff a bit further! Perhaps, but you are better off uncompressing the LZW first before trying another compression method. imc
