On 11/25/06, Jason Tower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
bzip is much slower than gzip, a lot less widespread, and doesn't yield substantially better compression ratios on the vast majority of data. so why bother?
While bzip2 is much slower than gzip, my experience with it has been that compression ratios are generally better than gzip. Now, that's using the default options on both gzip and bzip2, so I don't know if perhaps you could give gzip some option to compress more. As far as if it will be available in 20 years, I'd probably say yes, at least on Linux. Linux has started compressing their kernels using bzip2 instead of gzip now, so it's probably a sure bet it will be available there. I'll defer the question as to whether Linux will be around in 20 years. Of course, if you're paranoid about it, you could do this: 1. Add the sources to bzip2 on the dvd 2. Add a statically linked version of bzip2 to the dvd. That way you're probably covered. Cheers, Tanner -- Tanner Lovelace clubjuggler at gmail dot com http://wtl.wayfarer.org/ (fieldless) In fess two roundels in pale, a billet fesswise and an increscent, all sable. -- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
