Re: go back to gzip!

1999-04-03 Thread Jeff Galyan
If you "only have access to a Win95 machine", why aren't you just getting the Win32 version of Java from Sun? Win95 and Linux are so completely *not* similar in any way... Volker Augustin wrote: > > Ok, there has been a long discussion about using bzip2 or not. Apart from personal >problems us

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-04-01 Thread John Summerfield
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Tucker Balch wrote: > Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have java-linux even if I have to > download and install bzip2 to use it. Still I think it's better > to stick with more commonly available installation tools (and libraries > and kernels for that matter). > > Is java-li

Re: go back to gzip!n

1999-04-01 Thread John Summerfield
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Volker Augustin wrote: > Ok, there has been a long discussion about using bzip2 or not. Apart from > personal problems using bzip2 (I have only access to a Win95 machine and You oughta upgrade it. We do have a win95 machine here: it's the least used. > bzip2 --help does dis

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-04-01 Thread Thomas Koehler
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 12:19:44PM +0200, Robb Shecter wrote: > > Peter Kovacs wrote: > > > jdk1.2pre-v1.tar.bz2 24457274 > > jdk1.2pre-v1.tar.gz26062044 > > > > Means a 6.1% better compression rate. Is it really that much improvement? If it >was at least 1

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-04-01 Thread Robb Shecter
Peter Kovacs wrote: > jdk1.2pre-v1.tar.bz2 24457274 > jdk1.2pre-v1.tar.gz26062044 > > Means a 6.1% better compression rate. Is it really that much improvement? If it was >at least 15%... > Well, that looks like 1.6 MB per download. So, multiplied by the 5

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-04-01 Thread Peter Kovacs
jdk1.2pre-v1.tar.bz2 24457274 jdk1.2pre-v1.tar.gz26062044 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 w

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-31 Thread Magnus Niemann
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Tucker Balch wrote: > Nobody has bzip2, whatever that is. You're making your product less portable. > If you do insist on keeping bzip2, you'll need to change your installation > instructions because they reference gzip'd files. Excuse me, but all people *I* know (personall

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-31 Thread Volker Augustin
Ok, there has been a long discussion about using bzip2 or not. Apart from personal problems using bzip2 (I have only access to a Win95 machine and bzip2 --help does display help, but since it's going to stderr you cannot read all of it and since I could not find documentation I have no clue

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread Jeff Galyan
My RedHat 5.2 CD included bzip2... Tucker Balch wrote: > > Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have java-linux even if I have to > download and install bzip2 to use it. Still I think it's better > to stick with more commonly available installation tools (and libraries > and kernels for that matter

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread Jeff Galyan
Umm... bzip2 is open source and freely available to anyone (I compiled the binaries I use myself). David Wall wrote: > > 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.

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread Bryce McKinlay
Tucker Balch wrote: > Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have java-linux even if I have to > download and install bzip2 to use it. Still I think it's better > to stick with more commonly available installation tools (and libraries > and kernels for that matter). > > Is java-linux for kernel develop

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread Steve Byrne
Nelson Minar writes: > >Nobody has bzip2, whatever that is. You're making your product less portable. Perhaps, the author intended to say "nobody with no clue has bzip2 or knows what it is". Indeed this is a valid point, albeit delivered in a slightly suboptimal way. If you are releasing pre-

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread Paolo Ciccone
> "TB" == Tucker Balch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: TB> Is java-linux for kernel developers (100s of people) or the TB> linux masses (millions)? I suppose Debian includes it, but TB> RedHat 5.2 does not include bzip2, nor bzip2 capable tar. Sorry to contradict you but bzip2 is an

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread Tucker Balch
OK. I surrender. --Tucker Martin Little wrote: > > Tucker Balch wrote: > > > Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have java-linux even if I have to > > download and install bzip2 to use it. Still I think it's better > > to stick with more commonly available installation tools (and libraries > >

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread John Goerzen
"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

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread Martin Little
Tucker Balch wrote: > Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have java-linux even if I have to > download and install bzip2 to use it. Still I think it's better > to stick with more commonly available installation tools (and libraries > and kernels for that matter). > > Is java-linux for kernel devel

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread Tucker Balch
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have java-linux even if I have to download and install bzip2 to use it. Still I think it's better to stick with more commonly available installation tools (and libraries and kernels for that matter). Is java-linux for kernel developers (100s of people) or the linu

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread James Seigel
Cool I am a nobody now I thought that distributeing it using bzip2 was an excellent idea in that in promotes using bandwidth friendly software and gets people using it. Cheers James. Pooh Bear -- "I am just a bear of little brain" On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Tucker Balch wrote: > Nobody has bz

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread David Wall
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. 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

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread Levente Farkas
Tucker Balch wrote: > > Nobody has bzip2, whatever that is. You're making your product less portable. > If you do insist on keeping bzip2, you'll need to change your installation > instructions because they reference gzip'd files. Nobody has gzip, whatever that is. You're making your product l

RE: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread vhasty
In about the same time it took me to reply to the complaint about nobody having bzip2, I found this url: http://www.digistar.com/bzip2/index.html That has binaries for most major OS's as well as source. Vann -- Vann Hasty Evans & Sutherland > -Original Message- > From: Tucker Balch [m

Re: go back to gzip!

1999-03-30 Thread Nelson Minar
>Nobody has bzip2, whatever that is. You're making your product less portable. It always amazes me when people using free software are rude to the folks who are doing the work. Your message was impolite, and you were too lazy to go find bzip2, thereby wasting everyone else's time. You can get b